Cypriot Orthodox Archbishop on anti-Catholic protests

THE [Orthodox Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and All Cyprus, Chrysostomos II,] yesterday slammed religious groups who oppose the Pope’s visit in June, warning that they put themselves outside the Church.

A group, calling itself the ‘Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Motherland Traditions’, has been circulating a booklet entitled Pope: The Cause Of Evil.

“Unfortunately there are in Cyprus too, the mindless who go against the decisions of the official Church,” Archbishop Chrysostomos II said.

He warned that these people were placing themselves outside the Church.

The Archbishop said the Pontiff had been officially invited to Cyprus by the government with the Church’s agreement and “as the official Church we will welcome him with love and respect.”
Chrysostomos II said there will not be any talks between the Church and Pope.

“We will exchange views and I believe his visit will be positive and beneficial for our country and our people,” Chrysostomos II said.

He urged those who opposed the visit to “come round” and listen to the official church.

The 134-page booklet that is being put in people’s mail boxes seeks to remind people of the serious differences between Orthodoxy and “Papism” so that clerics and laypeople “view this visit in accordance with the holy rules of the Orthodox Church.”

Among other claims, the booklet makes historical references to the Second World War and the alleged actions of Catholics against the Orthodox.

“Many naïve Cypriots … will tomorrow raise their eyes to view the blessing hand of the Roman Pontiff, ignoring the fact that the blood dripping from this hand has created rivers,” the booklet said. “The institution of Papism is not only godless and antichrist but also criminal and murderous.”

“Popes did nothing substantive to condemn their sinful past and try and correct their crimes,” the booklet said.

Like this:

Related

63 Responses

Met. Athanasius of Lemesou (Cyprus) Speaks Out on Pope’s Visit to Cyprus

Introduction: I think most people know that the famous “Fr. Maximos” in *The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality* is the Metropolitan of Lemesou, Athanasios. He was a monk on Athos, who had the opportunity to spend time with such holy elders as Elders Paisios and Ephraim of Katounakia and others. He was, at the time of the writing of the book, the Abbot of the Monastery of the “Panagia Machera”. Since then he was consecrated Bishop of Lemesou (or Limassol).

In an interview published today (in Greek, viewable here: http://aktines.blogspot.com/) in the Cypriot Newspaper “Phileleftheros” Metropolitan Athanasius distances himself from the Archbishop’s decision to host the Pope in Cyprus (in a few weeks time):

Here are excerpts from the interview translated into English:

“For us Orthodox, the Pope is a heretic, outside of the Church, and, hence, not even a bishop”.

“He [the Pope] has been outside of the Church for ten centuries now, he is not a canonical bishop, he has no relation whatsoever to the reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is one thing to receive him as a canonical bishop and quite another to speak to him as [being] a heterodox in order to reveal to him the truth of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition.”

“Dialogue is not a bad thing when it is carried out based on correct presuppositions. However, it is wrong to say to these people that we recognize them as a Church, that we recognize the Pope as a Bishop, as our brother in Christ in the priesthood and in [the] faith. I cannot accept this, because we are lying [when we say this], since all of the Holy Fathers teach exactly the opposite. Papism is a heresy and the source of many other heresies which trouble the entire world today. A contemporary Saint of the Church, Saint Justin Popovich, said that in the history of the human race there have been three tragic falls: of the first-formed Adam, of the disciple of Christ, Judas, and of the Pope, who, when he was the first Bishop of the Church, fell from the apostolic faith, was cut off from the canonical Church and lured away a host of people with him until today.”

“God is one and the Church of God is one, and that is why we say in the Symbol of Faith [that we believe] “in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” This is the Orthodox Church, there do not exist many Churches.”

“When I say to the other that it doesn’t matter that you are catholic and that we all belong to the same Church, I am playing with him [or mocking him] since all of the Holy Fathers teach that the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ is one.”

“The Orthodox Church preserves the faith of the Apostles and the experience of the prophets unshakeable up until our own days. The Papists, unfortunately, from the time when they were cut off from the Church added many heretics dogmas to their [confession of] faith, changed the Symbol of Faith [the Nicene Creed] and above all elevated the Pope to the level of being the eminent and unique representative of God on earth.”

“When you add things to the Symbol of Faith that the Holy Fathers did not write, and many other false teachings, this is heresy. This is the reality of things.”

Question: How does the Orthodox Church encounter/deal with heretics?

“With much love. We love the Pope, we love the papists just as we love every person; we do not despise them, we do not reject them as persons, but we do not accept [their] heresy, we do not accept the false teachings, we do not accept [their] delusions. Because we love them we must tell them the truth.”

“Question: Do you think that the Dialogue can produce results?

“It can, if it is done properly and based on the right presuppositions. Unfortunately, as it is carried out today, it does not produce results, and that is why they have carried on discussions for so many years without coming to any conclusions.”

“Frankly and before all I disagree with the coming of the Pope to Cyprus and I say with my whole soul that the Pope is a heretic, he is not a bishop, he is not an Orthodox Christian and this is what the Holy Fathers say. If I am wrong, I am ready to be corrected, but on the basis of the Holy Fathers, not based on the mindset of globalization. Just because I disagree does not mean that I am being disorderly and am outside the Church [as some have claimed].”

“The Pope always speaks in a formal manner, says things which are customary [to his position], as he will say now that he will come to Cyprus, but he will do nothing of essence, because he is not the leader of the Church but a political person who cannot come into conflict with the political establishment and system. Did the Pope every speak up for the Orthodox Church?…But I am not returning back [to the distant past]. The reasons I am reacting today are purely theological. When I was consecrated a bishop I pledged to preserve the Orthodox Faith.”

“Question: The Pope said that he wants to make a pilgrimage following the steps of the Apostle Paul.

“With the exception that the Apostle Paul didn’t travel using a bulletproof car which cost 500,000 euros, which, I read, the Cypriot government has bought for the Pope to travel around Cyprus for the two days he will be here. I was personally quite scandalized by this news and said that a bulletproof car does not fit the Vicar of Christ. For the people to have to pay such a price in the midst of an economic crisis…”

Question: The announcement from the representatives of the Pope says that he is coming to Cyprus in order to promote human and Christian values and principles, and that he wants to walk in the steps of the Apostle Paul and in a spirit of the brotherhood meet the Orthodox Church with a good disposition.

“I do not doubt his good will – may it be that this is the case. May it be that he resembles the Apostle Paul and that he encounters the riches of the Orthodox Church. We pray that he return to the Orthodox Church and becomes once again an Orthodox Bishop as he was before the schism. This alone is the proper path to unity.”

Question: What do you think is the hidden agenda?

“The Vatican does not take steps thoughtlessly nor naively. Every tour of each Pope has as its aim to present him as the worldwide leader of Christianity. At this point, however, he is neither a canonical Bishop, nor Orthodox, such that he is in no place to present himself as having the first place among bishops.”

Question: Are there hidden political interests at stake here?

“I don’t know; I think that we [the Cypriot people] have nothing to gain politically from the visit of the Pope – only a lot of expenses and great upheavel in the consciences of the faithful.”

Question: The Archbishop said that all those who disagree will place themselves outside the Church.

“I am not aware of the Archbishop’s statements, but I don’t think that whoever disagrees with the coming of the Pope places himself outside the Church. I disagree and I say it boldly and frankly and I am not outside the Church.”

While I find the tone of +Athanasios’ remarks to be singularly unfortunate (not to mention uncharitable), they serve a useful purpose. Too many people (on both sides) are of the opinion that if the reasonable people sitting around a table can reach an agreement then it will be a done deal. Not so.

Agree with him or not, +Athanasios’ opinions are hardly outside the bounds of acceptable theologumen in the Church. I think it would be fair to say that he has simply given voice to what a very large number of Orthodox hierarchs and especially clergy and monastics believe.

For any restoration of communion to occur, it is not the pro-dialogue element that will need to be won over. It is the +Athanasioses and the monks as also the huge numbers of ordinary Orthodox laymen and women who fully share these views. Without winning over at least a very large number of them (you will never get them all) any restoration of communion would be a dead letter.

All very true, but for now they are a lost cause. The task at hand for Catholics is to understand the “more reasonable” Orthodox concerns, relieve any anxieties stemming from misunderstandings of Catholic positions, then successfully articulate with sympathetic Orthodox a programme for change that could form a basis for unity, and finally to let the Orthodox work out how to respond amongst themselves.

Without turning anyone away, what Catholics should not do is seek individual defections. The purpose of unity is joint witness and fulfillment of Christ’s prayer. Orthodox are not heretics, have valid clergy and sacraments, and have available to them all that is necessary to achieve salvation. Catholic communion is already open to any who might be disposed to share in it, and no repudiation of their past or coreligionists is required.

Meanwhile the dialogue serves to purify and enrich our understanding of the catholic faith. When the Orthodox Churches will be ready, they will find that they have to compromise nothing authentic for the sake of unity.

A large part of what passes as discourse on this site is a dialogue of the deaf between Catholic ecumenists and Orthodox anti-ecumenists. This feeds into the suspicions of some Orthodox that Eirenikon is merely a Trojan Horse aimed at weakening Orthodox resolve.

In the interest of balance, I would like to quote verbatim from a comment on the Anglo-Catholic site with regards to a perceived Rome-Moscow rapprochement. I don’t want to suggest that the comment is fair, or that it can pass without being challenged, but it does reflect the views of an important segment of Catholic opinion with respect to the seriousness and ethical shortcomings characteristic of modern Orthodoxy. In many ways it serves as counterpoint to the repetitive rant by Met. Athanasios cited by Joseph Hostetler above.

“Yes, indeed, the relationships between the 2 Church leaders are good, but on the spot, there is still a huge intolerance from the Orthodox Churches, especially the Greek and the Russian.

“In Russia, the Orthodox Church does not consider the freedom of choice between religions, and consider every people living on russian ground have to be Orthodox, even persons from other origins, such as Poles and Lithuanians… Therefore the bishops are lobbying toward the municipal authorities for the Catholics never to have the authorization to build a church.

“In Ukraina and Byelorussia, the Russian Orthodox Church deny to the Catholic Church the statute of historic Church in these countries, and with an absolutely bad faith refuses to give back the Catholic churches it occupies. It denies also the Eastern Catholic Churches the right to exist, and legitimates Stalin’s will of integrating them to the local Orthodox Churches.
There is also a problem of imperialism of the Orthodox Church, that refuses stubbornly the autonomy of the local Churches in the former SSR, a situation that creates schisms (there are 7 Orthodox Churches in Ukraina, all claiming to be the true and real one!).

“In Greece, probably the most conservative Orthodox Church still consider the Pope as the antichrist, as the higoumenos of the monastery of the Athos Mount said recently to a group of Catholic tourists.

“On the theological point, we must not forget that the Orthodox Church didn’t realize its conter-reformation, it is accordingly still very obscurantist, in some extents, theology is simply rejected, on the ground that the will to know who/what God is is simply highly sinful. The Orthodox Church didn’t have its own Trent Council, and so never interrogated itself on what to believe… On the theological point, the Orthodox Church is still in the Middle-Age, and highly reluctant to accept the filioque, still refered as the “Roman error”.

“On the disciplinary point, the Orthodox Church has no real head, morevoer the patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople are in concurrence in the granting of autocephality to local Churches. It would need a consensus of all the patriarchs and major archbishops to achieve communion, and this consensus is already most hard to achieve in internal Orthodox affairs.

“I have accordingly little hope to see the communion of the altar established between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and littlest hopes to see the 2 bodies merging in one Church.

it does reflect the views of an important segment of Catholic opinion with respect to the seriousness and ethical shortcomings characteristic of modern Orthodoxy. In many ways it serves as counterpoint to the repetitive rant by Met. Athanasios cited by Joseph Hostetler above.

The comments of Met. Athanasios – probably the most well respected bishop from the standpoint of being an ascetic and a spiritual father in Cyprus – are not directed so much at the Pope and Roman Catholics but to the Orthodox, and especially the hierarchs. And his “rant”, as you say, is because these very represenative, which you and others with you would like to believe are “moderate” and ready to reach a compromise, are not speaking the truth in love to you. They are, as Met. Athanasios said, lying to you and to the Pope and Roman Catholics. The Orthodox Church’s beliefs and views are not determined by the Archbishop or Patriarch but by the Saints and, as Met. Athanasios said in his interview, they are unanimous in their rejection of Roman Catholicism as a church, in the fullest sense, because of the heresy they see it teaching.

Now, if this view is just a “rant” to you, or if those who hold these views seem to you to be lacking in seriousness and morality, then what can one say? You prefer the politicians among the Orthodox hierarchs who tell you what you want to hear – they mollify you (as the Archbishop of Cyprus is CLEARLY DOING) to get the Pope’s political support and you like that. When one who is truly a spiritual man and faithful man tells you the “hard” Truth, you balk and say he is “ranting” and not serious. In my book, the people who aren’t serious are those who can’t hear the truth, who don’t want to dialogue with people who believe.

I described Met. Athanasios’ rant as such, not because I take issue with its content, but because it is high on repetition and tendentious assertions and low on substantiating evidence. Even perfectly orthodox Catholics whose views I agree with can rant. Personally, I am largely indifferent to whether some Orthodox, no matter how highly placed, holy or ascetic, consider the Pope to be a heretical layman, as it isn’t going to affect my view of the matter. If this is claim is the necessary point of departure for any discussion, then dialogue is really pointless. Similarly any Catholic demand that agreement over the validity of Catholic claims form the basis of any discussion would be similarly pointless. If some Orthodox don’t want to talk, we can live with that.

I do think, however, that you and Met. Athanasios should perhaps accept the fact that your position, your understanding of Catholic doctrine, and your epistemology do not seem to be accepted by many of your fellow Orthodox as normative. Rather than accusing your fellow Orthodox of lying (without even specifying the nature of the ascribed prevarication), allow for the possibility that they may conscientiously disagree with you.

But the problem doesn’t seem to stop there. What exactly is this “compromise” you seem to believe the other Cypriot hierarchs are willing to reach with the Catholic side? The existence of such a putative compromise certainly comes as news to me, and I follow ecumenical discussions very closely, far more closely I would hazard to suggest than you seem to.

If Met. Chrysostomos wants the Pope’s support for a “fair” settlement in Cyprus, he doesn’t have to accept any Catholic doctrinal claims to get it. Surely an informed appeal to justice should be enough, particularly as displaced Latin and Maronite Catholics on the island are in the same boat as their Orthodox compatriots.

Michaël is correct in that strongly held views exist on both sides. Witness this little gem from a recent discussion of the article by Sandro Magister on improved relations between Moscow and Rome…

All the beards, ancient clerical vestments, stunning churches, and liturgy aside, the Russian Orthodox Church has always been just another national, heretical and schismatic church, and since the time of Stalin is controlled by the KGB.

The Vatican today tries to maintain political relations (dialogue) with every country in the world, no matter how evil (Cuba, China, Vietnam etc.) The Russian Orthodox are just one more to dialogue with. “Dialogueing” with them does not legitimize their heresy and schism one bit.

The dogma can never be changed by this pope, the heretical and schismatic, “unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives, cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, even if they shed their blood for Christ:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Now, yes, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of all the heretical and schismatic clergy with proper apostolic succession, the so-called Eastern Orthodox being a later heresy, also has valid clergy and sacraments, however, ALL of their sacraments are of no efficacy to someone who is outside the Catholic Church because of heresy and schism. The sacraments are real, but the recipient is in a state of sin, in his heresy and schism, (and other sins, like adulterous 3rd marriage, permitted by the Orthodox), therefore, in a manner of speaking, one could say that the very next second, the state of sin returns. This is why Cantate Domino says “only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards”.

Anyone who receives the Sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic church, receives the whole Sacrament; however, he will not have salvation if he has that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. Eternal life can never in any way be obtained by anyone who, with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains a stranger to the Catholic Church. Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a partaker of eternal life if, before the end of this earthly life, he has not returned, and been incorporated into the Catholic Church. (St. Fulgentius)

Some men can receive Baptism outside the Church, but no one can either receive or possess salvation outside the Church. For the water of the Church is salutary and holy for those who use it well, but outside the Church no one can use it well. (St. Augustine)

There are many heresies which utilize the words of Baptism, but not in a proper sense, nor with sound faith; and, in consequence, the water which they pour is unprofitable, so that he who is sprinkled by them is polluted rather than redeemed. (St. Athanasius)

Although among heretics and schismatics there is the same Baptism, nevertheless, remission of sins is not operative among them because of the rottenness of discord and wickedness of dissension. (St. Augustine)

Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church, for many heretics also possess this Sacrament, but not the fruits of salvation. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason,they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non Catholic church. (St. Augustine)

With regards the point made in Michaël’s most recent comment…

“If this is claim is the necessary point of departure for any discussion, then dialogue is really pointless. Similarly any Catholic demand that agreement over the validity of Catholic claims form the basis of any discussion would be similarly pointless.”

I am inclined to agree. I have been and remain fairly convinced that while relations on some levels can and should improve that there is no realistic likelihood of ending the schism. We do not believe the same things. We can try and put as much lipstick on that pig as we like, but the fact remains. Things might have been fixable 500 years ago (though even that is questionable). But I believe we have gone far beyond the point of no return. Rome has dogmatized things which are flatly unacceptable to us.

Further to your “Rome has dogmatized things which are flatly unacceptable to us”, and assuming your assessment is correct, how in your view does this necessarily preclude an end to the schism?

This might seem to be a stupid question but, at least from the Catholic point of view, communion (not to mention salvation) can be open to those who are not in perfect agreement with what the Church teaches. It is my understanding that according to your Church’s canons Orthodox clergy are allowed in extremis to admit Catholics to communion. So while the Orthodox position in the matter may not be identical, it does still allow for some wiggle room.

We could, for example, return to the situation that prevailed between 1054 and 1099, and at various times and in various places since then, i.e. one in which our respective hierarchies maintain their doctrinal positions and fail to co-celebrate, yet still freely admit each other’s laity to the communion table.

But I am still not ready to grant your point cited above. I find Orthodox far more rigid in their interpretation of Catholic doctrine than are many Catholic bishops and theologians with impeccable official credentials. My strong suspicion is that there are legitimate Catholic takes and glosses on pretty much all the contested doctrinal points that can be fit within the realm of what has historically been considered “acceptable” in the East.

If my suspicion is correct, one question for Orthodox to consider might be whether the undeniable existence of doctrinally “unacceptable” currents within Catholicism so taints it as to preclude unity. In some ways this question is the same that confronted Catholics contemplating union with Anglicanism prior to its ordination of women.

As I have noted before elsewhere, I find it very significant that no council whose canons bind all Orthodox has ever anathemized any properly articulated Catholic teaching on unambiguously theological grounds. From a Catholic perspective it might be forgiven to see the hand of the Holy Spirit in what amounts to remarkable restraint given a background atmosphere of often virulent polemics.

>I have been and remain fairly convinced that while relations on some levels can and should improve that there is no realistic likelihood of ending the schism. We do not believe the same things.

I both agree and disagree with you. At present, the official teachings of the two churches do not line up. The question is, whether they are capable of lining up, in essentials. “Essentials” being the key. I have come to realize that, from the perspective of healing the schism, there are roughly three types of Catholics. First, there are those typical of the US and Canada, “liberal” Catholics: they have little or no interest in theology, Catholic or otherwise. For purposes of healing the schism, they are irrelevant. Then there are those, not unrepresented on this forum, who are fixed in their adherence to the post-schism western teachings, particularly with regard to the Pope. They may offer all kinds of verbal olive branches, but, at the end of the day, they will require from the Orthodox what the Orthodox can not and will not ever be able to give, that is agreement to the universal, immediate jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church. As long as they dominate the discussion from the Catholic side, dialogue is largely futile. But there is a third, not inconsiderable group. They have a great sympathy with Orthodox theology, and they recognize the pitfalls that western theology has fallen into post-schism. I number the late great Cardinal Yves Congar in their ranks. I have faint hopes that Pope Benedict may, secretly at this point, be numbered among them. I truly believe fruitful dialogue is possible with them.

What exactly do you understand as the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction that is inherently unacceptable to Orthodox on either traditional or dogmatic grounds?

I ask this because the Pope’s appellate authority was recognized in 343 by all the orthodox fathers at Sardica, including the great St Athanasius himself. How can he have appellate authority if his jurisdiction is constrained (i.e. non-universal) or has to be exercised through some agent outside his authority (i.e. mediate)?

I would have thought that the Pope’s claim to be able to speak authoritatively and infallibly for the episcopate in matters of faith and morals would have been seen as the more substantial bar to reconciliation.

Also, what makes you think Congar contested the requirement for acceptance of the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction? His whole life involved Job-like submission to it.

>What exactly do you understand as the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction that is inherently unacceptable to Orthodox on either traditional or dogmatic grounds?
I ask this because the Pope’s appellate authority was recognized in 343 by all the orthodox fathers at Sardica, including the great St Athanasius himself. How can he have appellate authority if his jurisdiction is constrained (i.e. non-universal) or has to be exercised through some agent outside his authority (i.e. mediate)?

My understanding of “immediate” jurisdiction in this context is that it means the Pope has the same authority over each and every diocese in the universal Church that the ordinary bishop does. It would therefore be much more than “appellate” jurisidiction, which is, by its nature, not immediate, i.e. it only engages when certain forums and channels have been exhausted. Immediate jurisdiction means, I believe, that the Pope can, if he chooses, intervene or take some action directly in any diocese, or parish for that matter, without waiting for any other person in the Church to take or decline to take action first. That, all disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding, really makes the Pope a kind of uber-Bishop. I really don’t see how else one can put it.

>Also, what makes you think Congar contested the requirement for acceptance of the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction? His whole life involved Job-like submission to it.

I don’t think I asserted that Congar explicitly contested the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction, or any other western Catholic doctrine. As far as I know, he did not.

Joe, your interpretation of Catholic ecclesiology is fairly common, but it is a misunderstanding. In the actual Vatican I documents, it is fairly clear that the immediate jurisdiction has to do with the Pope’s authority irrespective of local government authorities; i.e., the king cannot rule the Church in France.

“5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.’

“6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

“7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.”

Michael, you said: “We could, for example, return to the situation that prevailed between 1054 and 1099, and at various times and in various places since then, i.e. one in which our respective hierarchies maintain their doctrinal positions and fail to co-celebrate, yet still freely admit each other’s laity to the communion table.”

This is a type of “half-communion” which is actually not communion at all in my opinion. If our respective bishops East and West do not celebrate the Liturgy together nothing of real consequence has been achieved.

While schism is terrible, it certainly doesn’t stop sacramental grace from existing in each others respective mysteries.

Also, while my bishop has instructed his seminarians to commune Roman Catholics in extremis, this is only his opinion and as his clergy we are bound to exercise his rule in his diocese. To my knowledge there is no canon that expressly forbids this, but, many of my brethren and even other Orthodox bishops would likely say I had condemned myself to hell at that point for not guarding the mysteries. I would personally rather act in a pastoral manner and in obedience to my bishop. If I do this I have nothing to fear in regard to communing in extremis.

Obviously, the partial communion I am describing is hardly satisfactory. I am not suggesting we actually return to this practice. My point was that there is precedent for it, however, and it thus has implications that have a bearing on whether schism is necessary in given cases as opposed to merely a prudential choice.

One thing one has to appreciate is that the two communions are not perfect mirror images of each other. Catholicism has always been pluri-ritual, accommodating a wider range of theological expression by virtue of having to read and harmonize *both* the Latin and Greek Fathers. In this very narrow sense I think Catholicism can claim to better reflect the *legitimate* theological diversity and breadth of the pre-conciliar Church.

In contrast, Orthodoxy, has greater difficulty integrating the non-Greek Fathers, doing so only partially, grudgingly and selectively. This also extends to praxis. Orthodoxy has essentially lost the ancient liturgies of St James and St Mark, reducing them to all intent and purposes to museum pieces. Whether “Western” Orthodoxy will survive, for example, thus strikes me as a very open question.

Be that as it may, my point is that it is easier for Catholics to look at Orthodoxy and conclude something like “OK, they don’t teach X as we do, but we can’t find X explicitly taught by (hypothetical example) the Syriac Fathers either, though the earliest Coptic Fathers always taught what we understand as X. So maybe X isn’t the only way of expressing the particular truth the Fathers intended.” Orthodox, faced with the same situation, appear more likely to conclude something like “They teach X whereas the Greek Fathers did not, therefore X cannot be a legitimate expression of revealed truth.”

I am not saying you have to accept the Catholic position as correct and the Orthodox approach as flawed. I am simply trying to explain why Catholicism can appear more doctrinally pliable (accepting Orthodoxy as fully orthodox, for example, without reciprocation) despite having more doctrine authoritatively defined. Catholicism knows in its bones that there is more than one way to express the truth or approach the mysteries because this has always been its experience.

Consequently, to Catholics, an extraordinary definition by the magisterium doesn’t preclude important subsequent qualifications, or even a preference for a radically different (albeit interpretively compatible) take on the doctrinal issue in question. Thus John’s assertion above that “Rome has dogmatized things which are flatly unacceptable to us” need not be the end of the story. Even something that has been dogmatized can be expressed in different terms, and made subject to important further qualifications.

Unlike Romanides, I have great difficulty with the idea that the culturally Hellenic expression of the faith was the sole valid one, its exponents forming an anointed ethnos through whom Revelation from a tiny Judaic fragment was to be transmitted to the gentiles. Yet it appears that many Orthodox anti-ecumenists (particularly ethnic Greek ones) seem to find this notion quite congenial.

But perhaps I am trying to pack too much discordant thought in this response, as your point was more narrowly limited to the issue of eucharistic sharing. I probably have enough subject matter here for three or four different posts, and it might be best if I just cut miyself off at this point. :-/

I have to agree with you regarding the notion that “only” the Greek Fathers correctly understood and transmitted the Faith.

I have read some Hellenophiles arguing that only the Greek language could accurately describe the true “energetic” notion of being and existence and of theosis as a dynamic assimilation rather than just likeness.

But I think that this overlooks the fact that each language may bring forth different aspects of the same reality.

I’m sure the Syriac tradition, as well as the Coptic one, has much to offer in this regard. Too bad there’s not enough translation of major writers.

Fie on you , Evagrius, for tempting me so. I really wanted to avoid spiralling off topic like this, but I am sadly weak. ;-)

To be fair, very few Orthodox consciously subscribe to this notion. What is both refreshing and amazing about Romanides was the way in which he responded to this criticism be embracing it. One is reminded of the comic come-back to charges of moral terpitude: “Ok! So what’s your point?”

By “translations,” I assume you mean into English or some other equally accessible language. I believe they have all at least been translated into Latin and koine Greek, at least those whom the Syriac and Coptic Churches consider major.

Michaël,
Authority claimed; authority accepted or rejected; authority exercised. If papal authority is so clearly evolving, wouldn’t that speak more to its earthly, time-bound, administrative features than to anything dogmatic? While occupants of the See of Rome were the primary proponents of papal claims – understandably given its isolation post-Constantine and only remaining outpost of civilization for so long – any recognition by other sees and bishops of those claims are testimonies to political expediency deference to both antiquity and fidelity. Which continues to this day, given the variation with which Catholics embrace and simultaneously keep the Papacy at a distance, as you aver. You are doubtless familiar with the dynamic – enough dialogue with the Orthodox makes even the most liberal Catholic an ultra-montane!

Ultimately, fidelity to the faith once delivered is all. Whatever the model of episcopal jurisdiction (and your universal jurisdiction of the 12 apostles construct is interesting), a bishop loses all rights if he adds/subtracts from the deposit of faith, no? And I think this is the greatest issue between Os and Cs. That is why the filioque rears its head all the time.

I am not sure I quite get your point, so I will quote you specifically in responding so you can correct me if I misunderstood you.

“If papal authority is so clearly evolving, wouldn’t that speak more to its earthly, time-bound, administrative features than to anything dogmatic?”

Papal authority is multi-layered and multi-dimensional. It has core elements that form a constitutive part of the Church’s esse, other elements which one could describe as part of the Church’s bene esse, other elements that apply only to part or parts of the Church, and finally elements that are available to the whole or parts of the Church at their (the whole or parts’) prudential discretion.

The Catholic side is at the point where, in genuine humility and in response to the Lord’s appeal (whether or not this is recognized by the Orthodox side), all it requires from Orthodoxy is acceptance of “the core elements.” Nothing more, at least with respect to Papal authority, is expected of them.

The non-core elements of papal authority are indeed “earthly, time-bound and administrative” and so not inherently dogmatic (which is not to say that they don’t have a dogmatic basis).

“any recognition by other sees and bishops of those claims are testimonies to political expediency deference to both antiquity and fidelity.”

That might be true in some cases, but it is demonstrably not true in others (e.g. the humble and reverent submission of the Church of Corinth to St Clement’s injunctions). There is also value in studying in detail the rationales offered by the non-Roman papalist Fathers. These extend beyond expediency, habit or post-facto ascriptions of orthodoxy.

A potent historical example of traditional non-Roman papalism, can be seen in the encounter between the crusaders and the Maronites after centuries of lost contact. This community did not test the papal claims against some private standard of orthodoxy. It held them as having always having been recognized by Maronites, and still valid for them despite the long ensuing physical separation. Faced with (essentially Byzantine) accusations of Monothelite sympathies, they humbly submitted that whatever revisions of their ancient liturgy Rome might suggest in order to free them of what they considered a wholly unmerited slur.

You can’t claim expediency in this case, as the Maronites had been no strangers to the passage of Byzantine armies over the centuries that could have defended their interests. Nor were they unusually oppressed by their Islamic overlords at the time. They were just traditionally papalist Aramaics in non-doctrinal schism with their melkite (pro-imperial) Hellenic counterparts in Antioch.

“You are doubtless familiar with the dynamic – enough dialogue with the Orthodox makes even the most liberal Catholic an ultra-montane!”

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

“a bishop loses all rights if he adds/subtracts from the deposit of faith, no?”

I would have to say sorry but no, he doesn’t lose “all” rights. He loses some legitimate authority, but even this begs the question of who is qualified to judge that he has added or subtracted anything to or from the deposit of the faith.

I am largely indifferent to whether some Orthodox, no matter how highly placed, holy or ascetic, consider the Pope to be a heretical layman…

You are free to do that, but know that unity with the Orthodox will never happen in that way. In many ways the stance of Met. Athanasius is reminiscent of that of St. Mark of Ephesus, and we all know what happened when he returned without signing on the dotted line.

The point is that Met. Athanasius is no “ranter”. He cannot be ignored as “behind the times”, backwards, etc. etc. etc. Rather, he is at the center of the living Tradition of the Church, being followers of today’s Fathers in word and deed, as an immediate disciple of contemporary Saints of the Church and as one implementing the stance of the Holy Fathers.

Ignoring him may not be an option for you as you are Orthodox. Ignoring him is certainly an option for me as I am not. Therein lies the essential difference. Sharing Met. Athanasios’ perspective is not a price any Catholic would be willing to pay for unity. Unity, however, is not the sole purpose of discussions. If Met. Athansios wanted to discuss with the Holy Father the problems faced by the Church of Cyprus (which apparently he doesn’t), he could do so even while believing he was dealing with a heretical layman. The Catholic side does not insist on acceptance of its truth claims as a precondition for talks.

I could be wrong, but while Palamas condemned the filioque and what he understood as the papal claims, he didn’t condemn any *actual* Catholic dogmatic teaching–merely what he believed (inaccurately) to be Catholic teaching. At least this is my understanding, but I am not a Palamist, so… St Gregory is considered a saint by Catholics as well, btw, though he seems to be only actively venerated by Melkites, and possible some others in the smaller Byzantine Catholic Churches.

There is a lack of clarity and consistency in the Orthodox attitude towards Catholic sacraments. It varies from Church to Church, and in some cases from bishop to bishop.

It’s not really a big issue from the Catholic side, however. I never understood why Anglicans get so worked up at Rome’s non-recognition of their orders. Surely this should only be an issue for those planning to leave their communion and join another.

I didn’t mean that Palamas condemned any Catholic teaching but rather that the Orthodox Church dogmatized Palamas’ teaching concernig the divine energies only via a local synod and not a panorthodox synod – and still all Orthodox Churches accept this synodal decision.

When I found out just like you that the Orthodox teaching concerning the validity of Catholic sacraments is more than just variable, the image of “the same faith” in Orthodoxy began to fall apart (at least for me).

The debate between Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen I. of Rome about the baptism by heretics led to a deep fracture – nowadays within Orthodoxy it seems to be something you don’t talk about and each bishop can set his own standards.

Met. Athanasius objection to the visit of the Pope is not in his visit per se but in the stance taken by the Church of Cyprus – as being a departure from the Fathers and the traditional (off and on now for 1000 years) Orthodox approach.

So, the position of the Vatican/Roman Catholics vis-a-vis talks is really not at all an issue in Cyprus, or for that matter most any time an Orthodox hierarch speaks as does Met. Athanasius. The objections of those critical of ecumenistic overtures is almost also directed toward the perceived “selling out” of Orthodoxy by the Orthodox themselves.

Ralf,

The varied approaches of the Orthodox as to how a heterodox is accepted is a pastoral question not a dogmatic one. If, however, there are Orthodox hierarchs who accept PER SE the mysteries of the heterodox, then there is a dogmatic issue at stake – an ecclesiological issue. And, for most Orthodox, such a position is an innovation and departure from the traditional position. (Fr. George Dragas of Holy Cross Theological School has an excellent paper on this question online – a historical review of practice and theology). Actually, there is a very lively debate going on in Orthodoxy today, so we are talking about this issue a lot! If you had lived in the times of Cyprian would you think that think that the Christians then didn’t hold “the same faith”? (If you were Pope Stephen you might, who to the point of provoking schism wanted his view to be implemented everywhere. See Dionysius of Alexandria’s reply to him.)

Also, many Orthodox view the council in Constantinople which confirmed St. Gregory Palamas’ teaching as the 9th Oecumenical Council (the 8th being that under St. Photios, together with the Papal Legates) and they do so precisely on the basis you mentioned, Ralf – that the teaching has been accepted universally. Indeed, the second Sunday of Great Lent is dedicated to commemorating St. Gregory and his teaching – a commemoration set up at this council.

Michael,

So, the filioque is not the dogmatic teaching of your church? When did this change occur? Why so many centuries of condemning those who refuse to hold this view and for refusing to let it go then?

St. Gregory, by the way, levels very severe criticism against the filioque and names “the Latins” by name. He goes so far as to compare them and this belief with the Arians. (His treatise is not translated into English yet, but will be soon.) If St. Gregory is indeed recognized as a Saint among Roman Catholics today, after centuries of being regarded as a heretic, it would be an amazing step toward unity in and with the Church!

I will try to answer the points you addressed to me, and will let Ralf intervene on the others.

“Met. Athanasius objection to the visit of the Pope is not in his visit per se but in the stance taken by the Church of Cyprus – as being a departure from the Fathers and the traditional (off and on now for 1000 years) Orthodox approach.

So, the position of the Vatican/Roman Catholics vis-a-vis talks is really not at all an issue in Cyprus, or for that matter most any time an Orthodox hierarch speaks as does Met. Athanasius. The objections of those critical of ecumenistic overtures is almost also directed toward the perceived “selling out” of Orthodoxy by the Orthodox themselves. ”

What are the Cypriot “stance,” and this “perceived ‘selling out'” you are referring to? Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I have asked along these lines before and have received no answer. Yet the answer surely is critical. My impression is that Orthodox anti-ecumenists *assume* that something doctrinal is in the offing, even if they can’t put their finger on it. Possibly they think it involves something along the lines of recognition of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiality. If this is the case, I would note that you cannot infer formal recognition from the mere fact that Orthodox patriarchs acknowledge for the sake of courtesy that the Catholic Church calls itself as such, and use the same terminology when referring to it.

“So, the filioque is not the dogmatic teaching of your church? When did this change occur? Why so many centuries of condemning those who refuse to hold this view and for refusing to let it go then?”

The filoque is part of a dogmatic statement, but is not in and of itself a teaching. The pertinent issue is what the Church *means* by the interpolation. Pointedly, the Catholic Church does not teach that there are two processions (one from the Father and one from the Son), nor does it teach that the Spirit originates (other than possibly a strictly derivative way) in the Son. It does teach, however, that the Son has a (secondary) role in the procession, and that this role is inherent in the underlying relationship between the Son and the Spirit (i.e. without the role of the Son, there would be no procession.

The best simple way to describe the relationship would be to state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son, and this is the terminology used by a number of Eastern and Western Fathers. Such a statement would not have served the apologetic purposes of orthodoxy in 5th century Spain, however, as it had to confront a full-blown state-sponsored Arianism which made no bones of questioning Christ’s divinity. As the Arian Goths did not question the divinity of the Spirit, the filioque served to emphasize that the Word was logically prior to the Spirit and thus could not be a creature as the Arians maintained. Essentially, the filioque is about the Son and not principally about the Spirit.

How the use of the interpolation spread from Iberia to the rest of Latin Christendom is a complicated story not entirely relevant to this discussion.

There are several reasons the Latin Church is not prepared to drop the filioque from the Creed:

1. It believes the interpolation to be true;

2. The western Church has consistently defended the theology underlying the filioque;

3. Even without the filioque, the Latin and Greek versions of the Creed are not identical in meaning, as the Greek has a terminological precision which the Latin lacks;

4. Deletion of the filioque from the Creed would imply its repudiation precisely at a time when the divinity of Christ is under attack in the secularized West;

5. The Creed can already be recited with or without filioque as appropriate depending on the language and particular rite of the Church. Significantly, the interpolation is hardly ever included when the Creed is recited in Greek even in a Catholic context.

“St. Gregory, by the way, levels very severe criticism against the filioque and names “the Latins” by name. He goes so far as to compare them and this belief with the Arians. (His treatise is not translated into English yet, but will be soon.) ”

It should perhaps go without saying that Latins take issue with St. Gregory’s characterization of Latin teaching regarding the filioque. Be that as it may, criticism of the filioque can be mistaken, but such criticism need not rise to the level of heresy (at least in Catholic eyes).

“If St. Gregory is indeed recognized as a Saint among Roman Catholics today, after centuries of being regarded as a heretic, it would be an amazing step toward unity in and with the Church!”

The Church has never condemned Palamas as a heretic, though individual churchmen may have loosely described him as such. He has figured on the Melkite calendar of saints since 1971 (each rite has its own liturgical calendar), and John Paul II has been quoted as referring explicitly to “St Gregory Palamas,” which really should settle the matter. It may surprise you as well to know that St Photius is also considered a Catholic saint and is venerated in all the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Just a tiny drop concerning the “filioque”: the documents of the Council of Florence/Ferrata pretty much state clear what the Catholic position on that subject is.
I was suprised to see that the Catholic position is not what I thought it to be – and I realized many Orthodox don’t know that either. There is no clear Catholic-Orthodox difference besides a difference in perception.
But the fact that the Augustinian explanation of the Most Holy Trinity is still the most widely spread in Western Christianity does not help (St. Augustinus used the image of the Holy Spirit being the bond of love between Father and Son) – a subordination of the Holy Spirit can easily occur if you refer to this image only.

Joseph,

the Russian Orthodoxy always considered the Catholic sacraments as valid, even after the Greek patriarchs had declared them void in 1755 (the Russians upheld its acceptance of Catholic sacraments in 1757). And the validity was and is per se accepted.

Honestly speaking, I find it a bit strange that a bishop can by himself declare a sacrament valid or not and differ from his neighboring bishop. Maybe I’m just too Catholic, but I always saw the Church not as the mistress of the sacraments but only as the administering maid.

I guess that different ecclesiology already was existent back in the times of pope Stephen and Cyprian. And I guess that’s why the Orthodox don’t have the idea of a “valid, but forbidden” sacrament (e.g. holy order).

New fuel to the fire?…For your consideration. Note the lack of transparency on the part of those who helped bring about the Papal visit. Note the double-mindedness they exhibit. These are your “dialogue partners”, who, incidentally, really do not represent or speak for the majority of the FAITHFUL of the Orthodox Church (even if the secularized leaders of their countries respect them).

“It is with the deepest sorrow and spiritual anguish that we have been informed by His Beatitude the Archbishop during the convening of the Holy Synod on the 4th of May 2010, of the visit of the Pope upon the Orthodox soil of our saint-bearing island of Cyprus, which will be taking place pursuant to an official invitation that the President of the Republic of Cyprus extended to him as the Head of the State of Vatican. We have duly expressed our opposition – Synodically – to this visit, and have declared that we shall not participate in any event related to it, because our conscience does not permit it, inasmuch as the Pope is not just any political leader, but the leader of the heresy of Papism. The reason for this is that the Papists, with their adulteration of the proper Ecclesiology, have turned the Church of the living God from the Body of Christ to “a terrestrial political organization”, a worldly organism and a state which has secular powers, the way that the Vatican is…

Exploiting the opportunity of this visit, the Pope had asked that his second status also be projected, as the religious leader of the Roman Catholics. That is why he requested and secretly secured through his diplomatic services (as was proven eventually) the approval that he was given – which unfortunately we were informed of only recently, without previously being asked if we consented.

We simply became the audients of that decision, with which we of course disagreed, but alas in vain, since everything had already been finalized and predetermined in advance, unbeknownst to us. The only item that my humble person had agreed to was an encyclical to be dispatched to the Christian flock, in order to prevent any scandalizing and turmoil in the conscience of the faithful, with serious repercussions and unforeseen reactions. It is a pity, watching the supporters of Ecumenism extending compliments and diplomatic politeness to heretics, to the point of praying together with them, despite the explicit prohibition by the sacred Canons, while simultaneously confronting the reactions of the faithful members of the Church (who are agonizing over the outcome of the theological dialogues and are scandalized seeing Orthodox clergy keeping company and praying together with various heretics) with sarcastic smiles and abundant disdain, as though they (the faithful members) are the enemies of the Church.

That is why we consented to the decision to send out a relative encyclical to the Christian flock, in which it would be mentioned that the Pope’s visit was in response to an invitation by the President of the Republic, and that during his visit, there would be no theological dialogue taking place, while simultaneously pointing out the delusions of the Roman Catholics and the preservation of Unia. Unfortunately however, we came to realize afterwards, when reading the edited text – which, may it be noted, was sent to us six days after the Synod had convened – that its contents did not correspond to the positions that we had expressed synodically in order to consent to the issuance of the encyclical.

The Roman Catholics once again proved to be excellent diplomats. As made evident in the daily Press, they had arranged the Pope’s schedule in such a manner that – by means of worship congregations, especially the one that will take place in the closed stadium of Nicosia where Roman Catholic clergy from the Middle East will be present – confusion will ensue among the pious Orthodox of Cyprus, who are not in a position to discern the Uniates. Seeing them participate in the ritual, dressed in Orthodox vestments, it is certain that they will be misled and scandalized, by perceiving them to be Orthodox clergy. It is also not precluded that many foreign Press agencies – also fooled by the external appearance of the Uniates – will erroneously transmit the news that it is common prayer with “all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches”. The attempts of the Vatican to exploit the opportunity and present the Pope as the leader of Christianity and the entire world is very obvious.

With displays such as this, it is our humble opinion that the heretical papists are not assisted in becoming aware of their delusion, but instead are encouraged to preserve their intolerance and remained fixed in their cacodoxies, thus provoking the religious sentiment of the Orthodox. The persistence therefore in the precision of the Orthodox dogma should not be misconstrued as fanaticism or religious intolerance. If only the heretical papists would see their errors, spit out their delusions, return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and accept the undivided, Apostle-delivered Truth, the way it was formulated in the eight first centuries and safeguarded to this day by the Orthodox Church.

The argument that this visit will supposedly assist in the solving of the Cyprus issue can only cause us pain and immense concern. Let the governors be careful to not intervene in the matters of the Orthodox faith and exert detrimental pressures, supposedly for the sake of national interests, because the only thing they will achieve is the loss of Divine Grace, which will result in precisely the opposite of what they are pursuing. Be not persuaded by potentates, by sons of men, for in them there is no salvation (“Μη πεποίθατε επ’ άρχοντας, επί υιούς ανθρώπων, οις ουκ έστι σωτηρία” – Psalm 146:3), the Scripture characteristically mentions. Every time the Orthodox beseeched the Papists – and in fact mixing the matters of the Faith with politics – in order to supposedly obtain Papal help and protection, the exact opposite results were achieved. Those who harbor the illusion and cultivate the idea to the faithful people that by making partners of the heretics they will solve contemporary social or national issues and that the much-coveted union between the Orthodox and the members of other confessions will be achieved with secular criteria, should be aware that the Pope regards the said union with the Orthodox Church as an establishing of the Papal institution in the East and the submission of all the Orthodox, who will thereafter be under his pastoral jurisdiction as Uniates. History teaches us that the Pope has never hastened to aid and support the Orthodox. We share in the agony for the future of our suffering island, but we also humbly believe that Cyprus’ vindication will not be achieved by encouraging contemporary syncretism, but rather with the help of almighty God, as has repeatedly been proven within History.

The immediate objective of the Pope is that he be accepted as the universal religious leader of all Christians, and the ultimate one is to be acknowledged as the leader of all religions. The invocation of the Lord’s words “that they may all be one…” (John 17:21) for the purpose of laying the foundations for ecumenistic openings has no theological basis, unless it is supported by “the unity in the Faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit”, otherwise it will be overlooking the prerequisites placed by Christ Himself: “…just as we are one” (John 17:22).

The Orthodox Church has never ceased to beseech the All-merciful God “for the union of all”. It is the sedate, cleansed nous and the incessant Prayer that attract the Grace of the All-holy Spirit and assist in the partaking of the uncreated Grace of God; not the communication skills and public relations. May the Lord shed His light upon us all, so that we might ‘correctly preach the word of His truth’…”.

So Met. Paul objects to joint prayer between Catholics and Orthodox and to the fact that Byzantine Catholics from outside Cyprus will be wearing their traditional vestments when participating in a Catholic mass? Is this what this is all about?

Where is the “lack of transparency” or “double-mindedness” you refer to?

If the Orthodox faithful in Cyprus are somehow unaware that some Easterners over the centuries have seen fit to come into communion with Rome, then they must be extraordinarily ignorant. It strikes me that a charge of “lack of transparency” would more fairly lie with Orthodox hierarchs intent on keeping their flocks in the dark on this matter.

You suggest that our “dialogue partners” are not representative and are somehow deceiving us (yet you still offer no specifics regarding what they are deceiving us about). I am still puzzled at what you would have Catholic ecumenists actually do? Should we refuse to talk to any Orthodox, or should we just berate them as perfidious and obscurantist schismatic philetists?

Forgive me for being blunt, but it strikes me that Orthodox anti-ecumenists have no practical programme for cooperating with Christ’s will that we should be one. Instead, they just seem intent on closing the barn door lest any contact with the outside world provoke their flock to defect.

Even if Orthodox ecumenists are unrepresentative (one is left to wonder who actually elects them as bishops), they at least can be seen to be moving the Catholic behemoth by baby steps into a more nuanced and sympathetic appreciation of Orthodoxy. That in itself is progress. Orthodox anti-ecumenists, on the other hand, just challenge Catholics to hate them back.

1. I didn’t post Bishop Paul’s article as a response to your questions.

2. The key issue is theological and ecclesiological. Orthodox ecumenists like to the Archbishop of Cyprus are just plain ignorant or confused as to Orthodox teaching on this. Here is what he said in a recent interview:

Question: People here other hierarchs and theologians saying that Roman Catholicism is not a Church, but heresy and that the Pope is the leader of a heresy. Is this true?

Answer of the Archbishop: The Pope is the head of a Church [he means it ecclesiologically, not politically] and this is not my personal opinion [not true] but the position of the whole of the Orthodox Church. The Church accepts that the Roman Catholic Church is a sister and conducts a theological dialogue with Her, to which we [the Church of Cyprus] are also participants, with the aim at arriving at the unity of the first millennium of Christ. So, the Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholicism as a Church and its head as the canonical bishop of Presiding Rome. When we exchange letters on feast days and other letters, we call the Pope “His All-Holiness Pope of Presiding Rome and beloved brother.”

Question: Does a decision of the Holy Synod of Orthodoxy exist which ruled that Roman Catholicism is a heresy?

Answer: As far as I know such a decision does not exist. The Roman Catholic Church went into schism, fell away from the Correct Dogma.”

Now, since Vatican II you may have a new theory vis-a-vis the “Churches” and full and incomplete communion, etc., but the Orthodox Church has not and never has. Furthermore, it is totally incomprehensible and contradictory to say that a Church (in the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term) exists which has fallen away from the Right Faith. That is the same to say that a Church exists which teaches and believes heresy. The Orthodox Church has never accepted such a teaching. Only confused ecumenists like the Archbishop of Cyprus say such things.

Here he is “double-minded”. When he will accept the Pope as the Bishop of Rome next week and then turn around and say that he has made no compromises, has not endangered his orthodoxy, has not introduced a novel teaching into the Church, he is being double-minded. When he castigates the other bishops for saying nothing more than what many, many Saints have said in the past concerning the Church and heresy (in this case Papalism), and then accepts the ecclesial nature of the Papacy but nonetheless claims he is following the Holy Fathers, he is being double-minded. He is a typical ecumenist among the Orthodox.

And to answer you directly, Orthodox ecumenists are not acknowledging for the sake of courtesy (as you wrote) the ecclesiality of Rome, but as a something they confess and press others to confess and accept. Isn’t this clear from the Archbishop of Cyprus’ words and behaivor? His words are not semantics but articles of faith.

I think Bishop Paul spelled out quite clearly where the is a lack of transparency. I don’t need to address this.

From the Orthodox perspective, the Pope makes his visits to Orthodox countries not only for pilgrimage reasons, but for political reasons. Do you deny this? In particular, besides wanting to bridge the gap with the Orthodox (accepting his words a face value) he also believes he is the Pope of all Christians. Vatican II clearly considers all the baptized to be members – albeit incompletely – of the Catholic Church. Hence, all the Orthodox are also sons of the Catholic Church – albeit wayward sons and dissidents! He is not coming only to Cyprus for those who are under his obedience but also those who he would like to have under his obedience and considers should be under his obedience. He is their father and chief shepherd, after all!

Orthodox follow the Holy Fathers in their methodology vis-a-vis the heterodox and heretics. What practical program must they have in your opinion? Wasn’t it Christ’s will that “all be one” back in the 4th century – when the Fathers had no “practical program”? Are we now superior to the Fathers and our age “more sensitive” to divisions? What did the Holy Fathers do to bring back the “wayward sons” and “dissidents” of their day? St. Athanasius? St. Basil? Did they create a new, developed ecclesiology more in tune to “ecumenical sensitivities” which extended to include the heterodox in the Church – even if incompletely? Find me one sentence from any of the great Church Fathers of that age which spoke of such a thing. One sentence. I am still searching for one sentence from one Church father to this effect in the text of the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Regintegratio. Neither Father, nor canon is mentioned to support the *plene/non plene ecclesiastica communio* idea. But if there was one, it would surely be St. Augustine. This seems to be the Latin idea of consensus patrum – quoting St. Augustine or a previous Pope’s encyclical. But even St. Augustine never dared to speak of fruitful spiritual life outside of the Church (where love had been lost). No matter though – “a new Pentecost” has come and we are the Church Fathers now.

Forgive me. For I am off-topic. But you spoke of a “practical program” as if not having one was a sign of no love or care for the heterodox. But perhaps Christ had a “practical program” for “bringing about” His will? Hardly.

What is a Catholic interested in approaching Orthodoxy to do? Approach Orthodoxy. Just as many have done and been drawn by Her Beauty and Truth. Just as many did when being drawn to Christ. Don’t you agree that it is the work of the Holy Spirit – this bringing about unity? He has spoken – through the Saints. Study them and pray God to enlighten and humble and He will open doors that have yet to be encountered. There is a practical program for you – one that only the Holy Spirit can direct. Love the Truth and all else shall follow.

I have much to say and write, but it doesn’t fit in this little box and it is late.

One last thought: The Catholic behemoth is moving toward Orthodoxy not on account of the pathetic witness of the ecumenists but on account of the tragic condition it finds itself in – even desperate condition. The path of history, the spiritual laws at work, the Providence of God are all leading the “behemoth of Catholicism” toward its past, its better days, and not the shallow, politicized and self-interested machinations of a few ethnarchs in Constantinople and Cyprus. God and His Love of Mankind is not so small as to wait for and need their “big ideas” and “ecumenical overtures” in order to stir repentance and change in the hearts of even the most rigid and cynical leaders of the most divisive heresy in history – if they are truly humble and open.

We (you and I) are not going to agree, but at least you are offering something a bit more substantive for us to discuss.

“1. I didn’t post Bishop Paul’s article as a response to your questions.”

Perhaps, but the article raised again the same questions I had put to you earlier and which you had not answered. You make some effort to answer them here, and for this you have my thanks.

You quote Ab. Chrisostomos:

“The Pope is the head of a Church [he means it ecclesiologically, not politically] and this is not my personal opinion [not true] but the position of the whole of the Orthodox Church.”

There may be an issue of translation here, but you may be inferring meaning here that the Chrisostomos does not intend and that a Catholic would not hear.

It strikes me as significant that he refers to the Pope as the head of *a* Church, just as he (Ab. Chrisostomos) is the head of *a* Church (that of Cyprus). He didn’t describe the Pope as head of *the* Church (as Catholics believe the Pontiff to be). Now granted that the Orthodox and Catholic definitions of what constitutes a Church may differ, but on what basis has Orthodoxy as a whole ever completely denied the ecclesial reality of the Catholic Church? To entertain the existence of schism is implicitly to recognize in the other some degree of ecclesiality. You continue to quote:

“The Church accepts that the Roman Catholic Church is a sister and conducts a theological dialogue with Her, to which we [the Church of Cyprus] are also participants, with the aim at arriving at the unity of the first millennium of Christ. So, the Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholicism as a Church and its head as the canonical bishop of Presiding Rome. When we exchange letters on feast days and other letters, we call the Pope “His All-Holiness Pope of Presiding Rome and beloved brother.”

And the Catholic side doesn’t read any more into this than what Ab. Chrisostomos lays out here.

“Question: Does a decision of the Holy Synod of Orthodoxy exist which ruled that Roman Catholicism is a heresy?

Answer: As far as I know such a decision does not exist. The Roman Catholic Church went into schism, fell away from the Correct Dogma.”

If you are aware of such a decision by “the Holy Synod of Orthodoxy,” then feel free to point us to it.

“Now, since Vatican II you may have a new theory vis-a-vis the “Churches” and full and incomplete communion, etc., but the Orthodox Church has not and never has.”

That’s because the Orthodox Church doesn’t have a united view of what constitutes *a* Church, and has never had one.

“Furthermore, it is totally incomprehensible and contradictory to say that a Church (in the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term) exists which has fallen away from the Right Faith. That is the same to say that a Church exists which teaches and believes heresy.”

The Catholic Church does not consider its Orthodox counterparts to constitute Churches “in the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term” as they are not in visible unity with Christ’s Church that subsists in itself. Orthodoxy is in a state of “impaired” communion and so, by definition, cannot constitute Churches in “fullest ecclesiological” sense. What they constitute in Catholic ecclesiology is “true particular” Churches, with Apostolic succession and valid sacraments.

I say this not to offend, but to underline that Catholics would never consider Ab. Chrisostomos’ remarks to imply recognition of their ecclesiality “in the fullest ecclesiological” sense. That would be tantamount to denying that there is a schism.

“Here he is “double-minded”. When he will accept the Pope as the Bishop of Rome next week and then turn around and say that he has made no compromises, has not endangered his orthodoxy, has not introduced a novel teaching into the Church, he is being double-minded.”

Just out of curiosity, if the Pope is not bishop of Rome, who is? If Orthodoxy considers Rome to have no bishop, no clergy and no faithful, is this not a severely damning self-indictment? Would it not be incumbent of Orthodox to speedily remedy this omission by consecrating a bishop to the Apostolic See, as it did for Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch (twice) when these were seen to have fallen away?

“When he castigates the other bishops for saying nothing more than what many, many Saints have said in the past concerning the Church and heresy (in this case Papalism), and then accepts the ecclesial nature of the Papacy but nonetheless claims he is following the Holy Fathers, he is being double-minded.”

It is unclear to me, at least, that he is doing any of these things. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that he is condemning his dissenting colleagues for being offensively bad hosts. Do Orthodox normally make it a habit of accosting non-Orthodox who enter their home and of berating them with being heretics?

“And to answer you directly, Orthodox ecumenists are not acknowledging for the sake of courtesy (as you wrote) the ecclesiality of Rome, but as a something they confess and press others to confess and accept. Isn’t this clear from the Archbishop of Cyprus’ words and behaivor? His words are not semantics but articles of faith.”

With all due respect, “in the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term” were *your* words, not those of Ab. Chrisostomos. The mere fact that you would use this expression indicates that you allow for the possibility of ecclesiality that somehow falls short of “the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term.” As such, on what grounds do you insist that Chrisostomos can only be using the word “Church” in the full unqualified sense?

“From the Orthodox perspective, the Pope makes his visits to Orthodox countries not only for pilgrimage reasons, but for political reasons. Do you deny this?”

Of course I don’t deny it. Is this somehow something bad? Do you think Met. Hillarion just visited Italy so he could powder his sandals with sanctified tomb dust?

“In particular, besides wanting to bridge the gap with the Orthodox (accepting his words a face value) he also believes he is the Pope of all Christians. Vatican II clearly considers all the baptized to be members – albeit incompletely – of the Catholic Church.

Is this your reading of Unitadis Redintegratio? It’s not mine. The Council Fathers found that “in spite of [the obstacles] it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” But actual membership in the Catholic Church still requires an adequate profession faith.

“Hence, all the Orthodox are also sons of the Catholic Church – albeit wayward sons and dissidents!”

Only in a sense where no distinction is made between the Church and its visible manifestation. But I will grant your point where Orthodox are concerned as they can pass the test of profession.

“He is not coming only to Cyprus for those who are under his obedience but also those who he would like to have under his obedience and considers should be under his obedience. He is their father and chief shepherd, after all!”

I am sure that he must share some such sentiments. What of it? It’s not like he is going to rub them into his hosts’ faces. :-)

“Orthodox follow the Holy Fathers in their methodology vis-a-vis the heterodox and heretics. What practical program must they have in your opinion? Wasn’t it Christ’s will that “all be one” back in the 4th century – when the Fathers had no “practical program”? Are we now superior to the Fathers and our age “more sensitive” to divisions?”

No, but the situations are not quite the same. The 4th century Fathers were seized not so much with the task of uniting a divided Church but of purifying an outwardly united one. Nevertheless, they maintained a sense of proportion. In so doing, they excommunicated individuals, not whole Churches. The latter practice was a rather extraordinary and arrogant 11th-12th century Byzantine innovation.

“What did the Holy Fathers do to bring back the “wayward sons” and “dissidents” of their day? St. Athanasius? St. Basil?”

“They certainly didn’t refuse to meet bishops whom they considered unorthodox. In fact, they sat in councils with them.

“Did they create a new, developed ecclesiology more in tune to “ecumenical sensitivities” which extended to include the heterodox in the Church – even if incompletely? Find me one sentence from any of the great Church Fathers of that age which spoke of such a thing. One sentence.

This is a straw man. Find me a contemporary Catholic or Orthodox hierarch who does this. Ab. Chrisostomos certainly hasn’t. Your quote refers to “a Church,” not “the Church.”

“I am still searching for one sentence from one Church father to this effect in the text of the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Regintegratio. Neither Father, nor canon is mentioned to support the *plene/non plene ecclesiastica communio* idea. But if there was one, it would surely be St. Augustine. This seems to be the Latin idea of consensus patrum – quoting St. Augustine or a previous Pope’s encyclical. But even St. Augustine never dared to speak of fruitful spiritual life outside of the Church (where love had been lost).”

Well, Unitatis Redintegratio does cite St. Augustine in the matter (S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299), so you don’t have to search anymore. ;-)

But where does UR allude to “fruitful spiritual life” in this context?

“But you spoke of a “practical program” as if not having one was a sign of no love or care for the heterodox.”

Apparently my own words don’t serve your polemic purposes, so you have to put better ones in my mouth (as you do for Ab. Chrisostomos). Not having a practical program says nothing about love or care, but says much about pride and an insufficient submission to God.

“What is a Catholic interested in approaching Orthodoxy to do? Approach Orthodoxy.”

That wasn’t my question. I have no interest in approaching Orthodoxy, or at least what appears to be your version of it. It is intensely off-putting.

“Just as many have done and been drawn by Her Beauty and Truth. Just as many did when being drawn to Christ. Don’t you agree that it is the work of the Holy Spirit – this bringing about unity?”

I really wouldn’t go there if I were you. The balance of those drawn really doesn’t favour Orthodoxy. Will you agree that the many more millions who have reconciled with Rome have done so as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit? If this is your preferred path to unity, you have but to follow it.

“He has spoken – through the Saints. Study them and pray God to enlighten and humble and He will open doors that have yet to be encountered. There is a practical program for you – one that only the Holy Spirit can direct. Love the Truth and all else shall follow.”

I see. So your practical program is to advise me to ignore saints of the undivided Church like Augustine who don’t conform to your prejudices, but to rely instead more recent ones of your choice with little more than a rather local and polemicized following? Good luck with that. You might even manage to recruit a stray anti-papalist Anglican or confused Byzantine Catholic that way.

“The Catholic behemoth is moving toward Orthodoxy not on account of the pathetic witness of the ecumenists but on account of the tragic condition it finds itself in – even desperate condition. The path of history, the spiritual laws at work, the Providence of God are all leading the “behemoth of Catholicism” toward its past, its better days, and not the shallow, politicized and self-interested machinations of a few ethnarchs in Constantinople and Cyprus. God and His Love of Mankind is not so small as to wait for and need their “big ideas” and “ecumenical overtures” in order to stir repentance and change in the hearts of even the most rigid and cynical leaders of the most divisive heresy in history – if they are truly humble and open.”

I think I can be forgiven for passing on the remainder of your post. It speaks for itself.

Unlike Romanides, I have great difficulty with the idea that the culturally Hellenic expression of the faith was the sole valid one, its exponents forming an anointed ethnos through whom Revelation from a tiny Judaic fragment was to be transmitted to the gentiles. Yet it appears that many Orthodox anti-ecumenists (particularly ethnic Greek ones) seem to find this notion quite congenial.

Very interesting observation (among so many others!). One of my cyber-friends, a Jewish Christian whose in-laws are Greek Orthodox, argues that this insistence on the Eastern Way as the Only True Way overlooks the fact that the Judaic Easternness of the Apostolic Church is completely different from the Hellenic Easternness of the Byzantines. There’s Eastern, and then there’s Eastern. If you’re claiming Easternness as your badge of Gospel truth and legitimacy, based on the fact that ancient Palestine was in the East and Jesus Himself and His apostles were Eastern…then don your yarmulke, guys, and embrace Judaic Easternness, because the Byzantine variety is a whole ‘nuther kettle of gefilte fish.

“Just out of curiosity, if the Pope is not bishop of Rome, who is? If Orthodoxy considers Rome to have no bishop, no clergy and no faithful, is this not a severely damning self-indictment? Would it not be incumbent of Orthodox to speedily remedy this omission by consecrating a bishop to the Apostolic See, as it did for Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch (twice) when these were seen to have fallen away?”

This is a very good point and one I have used with my more rigid Orthodox brethren. While East and West remain in schism the fact remains that there is not a canonical Orthodox Church of Italy with a bishop in Rome.

Apples and oranges. It would seem Joseph that you would wish that the Orthodox would rush in and replace the Bishop of Rome. Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch were all replaced when the prior holders rejected Oecumenical Councils. No Council has been called to have done the same vis a vis a holder of the See of Rome. And, Orthodox, as you may know, would just as soon not rush to anything, thank you very much, discretion being the better part of valor and a touch of class.

Have you make the same argument regarding why Rome thought to install a Latin Bishop of Moscow?

Unfortunately for this argument, it doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny.

In 1724, the Arab monk Kyril Tanas was canonically elected Patriarch of Antioch. Suspecting him of Roman sympathies, Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople had him deposed and appointed the Greek monk Sylvester in his stead. Patriarchs of Constantinople continued to effectively appoint Greek incumbents as their Orthodox counterparts in Antioch (ignoring the wishes of the Arab faithful) until 1899.

Most of the Melkites remained loyal to Kyril and after five years were led by Kyril to reconcile with Rome, forming the Melkite Catholic Church.

So whatever the actual merits of the Antiochan case, it clearly offers a precedent for Orthodoxy stepping in and appointing a Patriarch for one of the ancient sees of the Pentarchy that was perceived as having fallen away, despite no repudiation of an ecumenical council.

If Kyril could be replaced and his Catholic successors ignored, then non-repudiation of any of the ecumenical councils cannot be the canonical reason Orthodoxy has not seen fit to appoint a bishop for Rome. That leaves either fatal loss of nerve and evangelical fervour, or implicit recognition that the Pope is in fact the true bishop of Rome even according to Orthodox ecclesiology.

It may be a loss of nerve; it may be that, as there are few Orthodox in Rome, then there is no need for a patriarch; it may also be that Orthodox hold out hope for a Roman patriarch to return to the faith of his predecessors of the 1st millennium, and dispense with the innovations of the 2nd. Nobody disputes those innovations, i.e. all agree that changes were indeed made, beginning with the Symbol of Faith; rather, the fight is that the West claims a right to make those changes or justify them under the modern rubric of doctrinal development, and the East fights the innovations categorically.

The interpolation is not, strictly speaking, an “innovation” of the second millennium. As this is the only one you specify, I am not sure your claim that “all agree that changes were indeed made” should rest unchallenged. I could point to a whole series of what I consider equivalent Orthodox “innovations,” only to get mired in that tricky swamp in which Orthodox deny having dogmatized these developments, yet insist that their pet anti-Catholic ecclesiological aphorisms should carry dogmatic force for their fellow Orthodox.

I don’t see much utility in either trading slogans or carping on doctrinal differences on procedural grounds. I much prefer to discuss whether given teachings are reasonable and historically justifiable readings of the Fathers.

With respect to an Orthodox episcopacy for Rome, my own view is that there were times in which some Orthodox *might* have taken such a step if they had thought they could make it stick. Chalcedonian patriarchs were only imposed/maintained in Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria thanks to imperial Byzantine troops (at least until the Islamic conquest). The Ottoman civil power was similarly used to impose an Orthodox patriarch against Kyril and his supporters in Antioch. There never was an opportunity to use the civil power in this way against Rome.

I say “times” because there were also clearly other periods in which I suspect such action would have seemed unthinkable to mainstream Orthodoxy. As evidence, I offer the shock expressed when the crusaders elected a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople while the Orthodox incumbent had fled to Nikaea.

There is also the provisional (and, in my view, severely ill thought through) recognition of Anglican orders offered in the first half of the last century by the Churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Sinai, Cyprus, Alexandria and Romania to consider. While this has never been acted on, it at least presupposes that “heterodoxy” does not ipso facto dogmatically preclude ecclesiality. If Anglican prelates can be real bishops, it’s hard to argue that Catholic ones can’t be.

Finally, I would cite the indignation offered by Orthodox when Rome regularized a Latin episcopate for Russia to charges of unprincipled aggression and proselytism in Orthodox “canonical territory.” If there is an Orthodox “canonical territory” there must presumably also be a Latin one in which Orthodoxy canonical structures would be irregular (with Rome a case in point).

Now, I am not going to presume to argue that Orthodoxy does dogmatically recognize the ecclesiality of the West. I will note, however, that Orthodox hardliners (for lack of a better word) haven’t convinced all their coreligionists of the dogmatic force of their arguments on the subject at any point in the last millennium. So I don’t see why we should accept the “hardline” view as necessarily authoritative, and the “moderate” view as prevaricative.

Dear Michaël,
Your postings are consistently erudite, thoughtful and honest, just the fine characteristics needed on the blogosphere to wade through tricky swamps. Would you mind, in this spirit then, elaborate on that “whole series of what I consider equivalent Orthodox “innovations””? I am particularly intrigued on the equivalent qualifer.

This sounds like an interesting project. I can name a few off the top of my head, but give me a day or so to organize my thoughts on the matter and see if I can come up with a cohesive (if necessarily only partial) list. Note that I don’t consider innovations to be bad things per se, however, though they often are. I will also admit that there have been some Catholic “innovations” in this non-pejorative sense. But my list of Orthodox innovations will probably end up focusing on ecclesiology as this is the field where I am strongest and where I think the two communions have diverged most.

I am sorry to have taken so long to pull this answer together. It is far less researched than I would have hoped, and I welcome any responses from both Catholics and Orthodox. I should be clear that by “innovations” I do not mean “heresies,” but rather departures from earlier common thought or practice. The first millennium is ripe with innovations (e.g. the division of the presbyterate into priests and monarchical bishops, the scriptural canon, ecumenical councils, the creeds, canon law, etc.) but it is the post schism second millennium that I wish to dwell on in response to the Orthodox charge that the East has not changed since, while the West has charged on unilaterally with novel theology and praxis.

While innovation need not mean heresy, it can lead to what I perceive as abuses that strain the credibility and witness of the Church and Gospel. I will state up front that I have little sympathy for and am seriously troubled most of the Orthodox “innovations” I am presenting here. The others leave me indifferent, and I would not particularly welcome their introduction into the Latin Church. Finally, I must concede that there are real limitations to my scholarship, and I could be wrong in ascribing some of these developments to the second millennium. There is also some question as to whether theological positions or practices that appear normative in contemporary Orthodoxy are in fact dogmatically binding. These are issues we can discuss.

I am going to divide my list of innovations into three categories matching sacramental, ecclesiological and trinitarian theology. As pressing matters I have to attend to make it impossible for me to offer my whole annotated list for another day or so, I offer my thought first on sacramental “innovations” for consideration lest you accuse by Stephen of shirking entirely my commitment to respond. ;-)

Sacramental Theology: Modern Orthodoxy appears to treat the sacraments as something the Church *does* for the faithful and for God, whereas Catholicism insists firmly that the sacraments are what God *does* for the faithful through the Church. I say “appears to treat” because formally the Catholic and Orthodox positions are the same (and the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox understanding as such). Formal theology aside, however, the Orthodox attitude that the Church can turn on or off, as it were, the grace conveyed by the sacraments suggests a strong belief that these belong to the Church and not to God. I understand that the more official Orthodox position is that it is the recipient of the sacrament who opens or closes the way for grace, but this is bellied by the use of terminology which describes the sacraments themselves as not transmitting grace outside the Church. Of course, some Orthodox go even further denying that sacraments outside the Church have any intrinsic force whatever, insisting on de novo baptism for “converts” for example, which as an absolute practice is a rather violent and radical departure from that of the first millennial. Still, even “rebaptizers” accept as members of the Orthodox Church those whom other bishops have chosen to admit by chrysmation or even just a profession of faith, so the degree to which even hardliners are committed to this extreme position is open to question. Even the less extreme attitude which I see as placing visible unity with the Church above the sacraments (as opposed to visible unity being the product of the sacraments) constitutes an innovation at odds with the common practice of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

Another rather pointed example of this view of the Church as mistress rather than servant of the sacraments has been alluded to frequently by some here and on other sites: second and third marriage. To be clear, there are ancient differences in the praxis of the two Churches. In the West a widower has always been free to remarry sacramentally whereas in the East, death of a spouse was not traditionally treated as any different than a formal separation from a live one. Annulments have, of course, also been available for Catholics who can demonstrate deficiencies of form (e.g. moral or physical impotence, or prior impediment) or original intent (e.g.coercion, deception , or lack of informed consent) in the rite. Actual divorce and remarriage have never been possible in the Catholic Church, however, and even in the Orthodox Church, second marriages at least during the life of the previous spouse used to be described as penitential (and still are in some Orthodox Churches) rather than sacramental. Recent (certainly post-millennial) practice in some of the larger Orthodox Churches has been to blur this essential distinction, however, and this is a serious, and Catholic eyes radical, departure in sacramental theology.

To be continued with sections on ecclesiological and trinitarian theology…

Michael, it is especially the Sacramental Theology (inculding the sacrament of marriage, being married to an orthodox woman) that surprised me very much when I learned more about it.
Yes, I think you put it correctly, at least phenomenolgically the Orthodox Church “does” the sacraments, meaning the Church has cpmplete power over the sacramental grace. A laicised priest or bishop is no longer priest or bishop in the Orthodox Church(!) (I’d thus doubt the same formal position of Catholic and Orthodox theology on the sacraments) while in the Catholic Church he is just not allowed to carry out any priestly activity.
And the fact that a Serbian Orthodox bishop (the Serbs re-baptize) would accept a Russian convert from,e.g., protestantism (the Russians don’t re-baptize) as a brother of the same Church doesn’t make much sense to me either.
I dount that Cyprian of Carthage’s position was held unanimously in the East, and since Pope Stephen’s position was accepted throughout the whole Church later on, departing from that position is a clear innovation.

The problem of remarriage historically seen seems to be a political one, since the Emperor Constantine legalized divorce in the new Eastern Roman Empire and the local church had to follow his ruling, but the West remained faithful to the teachings of the primitive church.

The reason I say the formal positions can be reconciled is that in Orthodoxy a bishop who is deposed and later given the same or another diocese to rule is not ordained a second time. So in principle, Orthodoxy accepts the indelible character of the sacrament. The novelty lies in the presumption that the Church somehow controls the flow of grace associated with the sacrament. This Orthodox departure from the primitive understanding leads to the sort of confusion you mention, as it is not always clear in Orthodoxy who is in communion with whom and so who is or is not enabled to perform the sacraments. But I should get on with drafting the rest of my list. ;-)

Thank you Michaël. Not to interrupt your endeavor, but rather than save questions for the end, perhaps you wouldn’t mind a dialogue within your three areas?

Is there another agent/conduit/forum for the dispensation/reception/experience of grace and the sacraments other than the Church? If not, isn’t your issue here one of understanding the boundaries of the Church, if that is indeed possible?

I don’t mind a dialogue as I go along, though it will stretch out the process if it gets too involved.

With respect to the sacraments, I do not see boundaries as the issue. Even if the Church is the sole agent for the transmission of grace (which is arguable as the Church exists where grace flows rather than the reverse), grace is a free gift, marks the soul and cannot be recalled. Thus those sacraments that are administered once (baptism, chrysmation/confirmation, ordination, marriage) place one in a *permanent* and unconditional (however incomplete or humanly repudiated) relationship with God and thus the Church (whether or not this last constitutes actual “membership”).

Thus the real issue is whether it is God or the Church who dispenses grace through the sacraments. What strikes me as novel in the contemporary Orthodox attitude is this assumption that it is in an unqualified sense both, together, in an ongoing synergy. This is the slippery slope that led to such confused practices as non-penitential second marriages, rebaptism, and asymmetric communion among (at least nominally) Orthodox which most Orthodox recognize as sacramental abuses.

Hypothetically, if the Church of Finland ever decides to ordain women and conduct same-sex marriages, it will be at least in part a consequence of the novelty of this assumed mastery over the sacraments.

You wrote:
With all due respect, “in the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term” were *your* words, not those of Ab. Chrisostomos. The mere fact that you would use this expression indicates that you allow for the possibility of ecclesiality that somehow falls short of “the fullest ecclesiological meaning of the term.” As such, on what grounds do you insist that Chrisostomos can only be using the word “Church” in the full unqualified sense?

My reply: What I meant was that he was not speaking in this way (which is obvious from the context) to be polite or to call the Papacy by the name that they wished to be called – as is done in ecumenical dialogue – but because he sees the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, as a brother-bishop of the Church, as the head of a Local Church.

In Orthodoxy, we do not make the distinction made in Vatican II and which you made between “particular Churches” and the institutionally valid and visible Church of Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. When we speak of a Local Church we are speaking only of those Local Churches which are in communion with all the Local Orthodox Churches. These alone constitute the Orthodox Church. To refer to the Pope and his parasyagogue/heresy as a Local Church is to speak in total contradiction of Orthodox Ecclessiology, for Papalism is neither in communion with the Church nor professing the Orthodox Faith and hasn’t been for 1000 years.

You do not live and move in the Orthodox milieu and therefore you are interpreting his words from your limited perspective, informed by contemporary post Vatican II ecclesiology. To interpret his words properly you must put them into context – which is something nearly impossible for you to do – to no fault of your own.

Again, it must be stressed that the issue is neither what the Pope believes or sees us as believing, nor whether one is being polite or not, but whether or not the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church – in this case the Archbishop of Cyprus – are confessing the Orthodox faith and position vis-a-vis the Church and the heresy of Papalism.

– Met. Hilarion is one of those hierarchs. Of course, he is in Italy to perform his concert! ;-)

[I had written] “Vatican II clearly considers all the baptized to be members – albeit incompletely – of the Catholic Church.”

[You wrote in reply] Is this your reading of Unitadis Redintegratio? It’s not mine…**But actual membership in the Catholic Church still requires an adequate profession faith.**

– It is not my reading, but Johannes Feiner’s reading in his well-known commentary on the Decree on Ecumenism. Here is what Feiner writes about the nature of membership for “non-catholics”: “membership of the Church and incorporation into the body of Christ on the inward level, which is signified, can be *fully realized* even though the sacramental and institutional sign, membership of the Church on the visible level, is incomplete.” And elsewhere, “baptism, as a visible and palpable element of the Church, belongs to the nature of the Church as a body, and makes the Church visible in the person who receives it. Outside the Catholic Church, not only the “soul” but also the “body” of the Church is present.”

This interpretation of the decree, based as it is on Vatican II’s “elements” and “communion” ecclesiologies, if it is representative of the official view, not only contradicts previous Papal encyclicals but also St. Augustine’s view of schismatic and heretical baptism. Do you disagree?

You wrote: “The 4th century Fathers were seized not so much with the task of uniting a divided Church but of purifying an outwardly united one. Nevertheless, they maintained a sense of proportion. In so doing, they excommunicated individuals, not whole Churches. The latter practice was a rather extraordinary and arrogant 11th-12th century Byzantine innovation.”

– Firstly, you speak of a “divided church.” That is an idea unacceptable to the Orthodox, and I would think, to you, too. The Church is One and cannot be divided. It is precisely this *article of faith* which precludes the kind of ecclesiology pushed both by Vatican II and by certain Orthodox ecumenists. Indeed, to say the Church is divided is nothing less than heresy, since we confess our faith in the UNA SANCTA.

Secondly, After Nicene, when the heresy of Arius was synodically condemned, the Fathers were indeed fighting against heresy condemned and condemned heretics. The heretical minded were not a part of the Church but were truly alien to the Church even as they infiltrated the hierarchy and attacked the Faith once delivered, attempting, with carrot and stick, to overcome those of orthodox confession. They used political means to marginalize and exile the Orthodox. They lied to the emperor and slandered the Orthodox. From all of this, I see many parallels with today’s situation – at least in Orthodox lands like Greece and Cyprus. In any case, the methodology (in its essentials) of the Holy Fathers does not and cannot change, let alone their ecclesiology for the latter gives birth to the former.

As for excommunications in the 11th century, I am surprised you dare bring the subject up and speak of the other side’s arrogance. It was the papal legates who began throwing excommunications around, after all.

You wrote: “They certainly didn’t refuse to meet bishops whom they considered unorthodox. In fact, they sat in councils with them.

– Nor have the Orthodox – repeatedly, centuries on end, centuries ago. Nor do the Orthodox today refuse to meet with the heterodox – but on what conditions and presuppositions? That is the issue. The Holy Fathers would never have entered into unending dialogue with heretics “on equal terms”. Such an approach shows great ignorance of the laws of the spiritual life and workings of the evil one. “Cutting off” the heretics, as St. Mark put it, is not a lack of love for them but rather a recognition that further attempts at reconciliation are not only “throwing pearls before swine” but also reckless and inviting spiritual shipwreck upon oneself. Such discernment today is ridiculed as fanaticism, of course, but it pervades the thought of Fathers (even in texts such as St. John Climicus’ word to the Shepherd, which is cited sometimes as support for endless dialogue).

[I had written:] “Did they create a new, developed ecclesiology more in tune to “ecumenical sensitivities” which extended to include the heterodox in the Church – even if incompletely?

– Firstly, the “elements ecclesiology” of Vatican II, with its “baptismal theology/common baptism” aspects is, even according to its greatest supporters, unprecedented even for RCism.

Secondly, as I said above, Archbishop Chyrsostomos and, before him, Patriarch Bartholomew, together with Met. John Zizioulis, speak of RCism as a Church and by that they mean a Local Church. As there is no distinction in Orthodoxy, as there is in contemporary RCism, between “a particular Church” which is not The One Church (i.e. THE Church in that place), your reply misses (again) what is at stake here. “A Church” or “The Church” is the same in Orthodoxy. If it is a Local Church the Eucharist is celebrated there and it is in communion with all the other Orthodox Churches and therefore it is “THE CHURCH” in that locality. So, yes, we do see a novel ecclesiology invented by today’s ecumenists approaching that of Vatican II.

[I wrote:] “I am still searching for one sentence from one Church father to this effect in the text of the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Regintegratio. Neither Father, nor canon is mentioned to support the *plene/non plene ecclesiastica communio* idea. But if there was one, it would surely be St. Augustine. This seems to be the Latin idea of consensus patrum – quoting St. Augustine or a previous Pope’s encyclical.”

– That fact that you think this is joke is not reassuring. That you don’t seem to understand that there is little to no Patristic basis for Vatican II’s ecclesiology (as it is spelled out in UR) is indicative of the general indifference of contemporary Roman Catholics to the Holy Fathers. That St. Augustine is the sole Patristic basis – and even he is surpassed or disregarded when he doesn’t fit into the new scheme – shows that the principle of consensus partum is a dead letter in practice in contemporary RCism – even with all those volumes of studies being published. It could be likened to the approach of the Protestants to Holy Scripture – when it fits their purposes they use it, when it does not, they ignore it. Forgive the bluntness, but this is what is seems to me.

[You wrote:] But where does UR allude to “fruitful spiritual life” in this context?

– You haven’t read the text? UR clearly says that the non-catholic Churches and ecclesial communities are “means of salvation,” that elements of the Church exist there, such as “the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit,” that “sacred acts” are carried out there which truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation,” and more (see Chapter 1, article 3). Are you going to tell me that these do not mean a “fruitful spiritual life”? INTERIOR GIFTS of the Holy Spirit are not fruits? “Accessing salvation” is not a result of the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

St. Augustine is quite clear – and in this I believe he echos other Holy Fathers – that “many things, many important things, are of no avail, if a certain single thing be wanting” (chapter 9). The one thing that is wanting is unity with/in the Church in the orthodox Faith. He says repeatedly that those in schism have whatever they have (he believes baptism per se) to no profit (ch. 5.7). So, it would seem that the one Father that is quoted in UR is not, in fact, followed. So much for a Patristic basis.

[You wrote:] Not having a practical program says nothing about love or care, but says much about pride and an insufficient submission to God.

– When you don’t construct a practical program then the program of the Holy Spirit has room to work. That is the point.

[You wrote:] I have no interest in approaching Orthodoxy, or at least what appears to be your version of it. It is intensely off-putting.

– But you don’t want to bask in “The Light from the East” your Pope so obsequiously praised? You don’t want to read the Russian émigrés theologians your “Council Fathers” were inspired by? You don’t want to “breathe with the second lung of Christendom”? Forgive the sarcasm, but I hope you get my point: you all seem to love Orthodoxy for what it can give you, or what you can get from it. You – or your Popes – feel that something is missing, that they need “the East”, its “wonderful Liturgy” and “beautiful tradition, etc. etc. etc. ad nausea. but you don’t seem to understand that thinking of its riches as independent “elements” to be acquired or pasted on (a la Vatican II) won’t do. It is all or nothing. Its one organic whole, one body. You might not like the way I polemically present Orthodoxy to you, but you have to admit, as your leadership intimates, that something is missing that only Orthodoxy possesses.

[you wrote:] Will you agree that the many more millions who have reconciled with Rome have done so as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit?

– Not surprisingly, no. Firstly, what millions? Are these former Protestants you speak of? Has there been a massive return that I have not heard about? On the contrary, what one sees in the news on an almost weekly basis now for many years is the endless train of child abusers which the Vatican, under Ratzinger, moved around the world to avoid scandal (only to have it come upon them later). But, it is not a numbers game, anyway. It is about the Truth – and in our day of general spiritual decline and delusion can we expect big numbers to understand?

No, I do not think those who do leave Protestantism choose Rome OVER Orthodoxy. Like I was years ago, they are ignorant of Orthodoxy and RCism is the closest thing they know to historic Christianity. It also happens that the Latin mentality is very much akin to their own. As Bishop Kallistos mentions in his introduction to Orthodoxy, the Roman Pope was the first Protestant, so Protestants feel very much at home – especially in post-Vatican II Catholicism, which is even more agreeable to them then pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

Truly and sincerely, I mean to only speak the plain truth as I understand it, for I believe that it, according to the words of the Lord, will set us all free. Undoubtedly, I fall short and my “polemical” style is an obstacle to you approaching the truth of what is written. For that, I pray forgiveness and hope that you will not hold it against “the pillar and ground of Truth” not me.

I conclude with what a great, Orthodox theologian, Fr. George Florovsky, wrote back in 1950 – not in a polemical
tone but a forthright and honest manner:

“As a member [and priest] of the Orthodox Church I believe that the Church in which I was baptized and brought up is in very truth THE CHURCH, i.e. the true Church and the only true Church. I believe that for many reasons: by personal convinction and by the inner testimony of the Spirit which breathes in the sacraments of the Church and by all that I could learn from Scripture and from the universal tradition of the Church. I am compelled therefore to regard all other Christian Churches as deficient, and in many cases I can identify these deficiencies accurately enough. Therefore for me, Christian reunion is just universal conversion to Orthodoxy. I have no confessional loyalty; my loyalty belongs solely to the Una Sancta.”

If only certain ecumenist hierarchs would speak so plainly and clearly to the non-Orthodox.

I will respond in due time but you will have to wait until I complete my conversation with Stephen which is currently taking all my “theological” attention. I don’t expect to convince you when I do respond fully, but merely hope to demonstrate that some of your assumptions (especially your historical ones) are not as solid as you seem to believe.

Just to give you a foretaste, however, no I don’t want to “bask in the Light of the East” (it strikes me really as an acquired taste). I don’t find the Russian émigré theologians as a group that extraordinarily inspiring, but even if I did, I don’t have to be in communion with Mt. Athos to read their works. I feel I already breathe with both lungs, both Eastern and Western; what puzzles me is the insistence of some Orthodox to use only one. I don’t think Orthodoxy has *anything* of value to offer me that I don’t already have or that I cannot already obtain outside its bounds. I don’t *need* the East, I don’t *care* about its liturgy (except in an abstract or antiquarian sense), and I don’t see its tradition (insofar as it is unique and not shared with Catholicism) in any way beautiful or attractive. In short, I am not by any stretch of the imagination an orientophile, yet you seem to assume that anyone with a burning desire to see a reconciliation of Christendom somehow must be, else this burning desire makes no sense to you. You have mistaken common respect and charity for envy. You might wish to reflect on this a bit before launching into further apologetics, as you are widely missing the mark.

Just to give you a foretaste, however, no I don’t want to “bask in the Light of the East” (it strikes me really as an acquired taste).

Oh my gosh–thank you!! Finally someone has said what I feel in my inmost being. The Eastern Mystique does absolutely nothing for me. If it does something for other people (including my Eastern Catholic brethren), more power to ’em. That’s one of the great beauties of Catholicism — it truly is the Catholica, embracing both East and West and transcending both. If the Eastern tradition floats your boat, I rejoice. Go for it. Enjoy it. Find your spiritual home in it. It works for you, and that’s great. But it’s not for everyone. I’ve discovered that it’s not for me, for instance. I love the icons and the music, but not to the exclusion of the Western stuff that has been part of the air I breathe ever since I was an infant. In the immortal words of Prince Orlofsky, chacun a son gout. Don’t absolutize your experience, Joseph. It isn’t everyone’s!

There are countless legitimate spiritualities within the Catholica, so that every single soul can find the cultural and spiritual milieu in which he or she feels most at home. This is a Good Thing. No one need be trapped within a rigid, narrow, exclusivist expression of Christian life. Catholic spiritualities are as richly various as Catholics themselves. And thank God for that!

being interested in Eastern Christian tradition (not necessarily Orthodox, as there are many Eastern Churches within the Catholic Church) does not mean to view its riches only as a pick-and-choose for my own spiritual good.

I can be interested in Islam without acquiring any of its mindset.

As Michael has put it, I am not missing anything either. I can go to Byzantine Churches I am in communion with and to Byzantine Churches I am not in communion with.

It’s not about us, it’s not about the Churches themselves. It’s about the mission for the world. Christendom is supposed to be One Visible Body so that the world(!) may believe in Christ Jesus.

And although this is not a favorite subject for Orthodox Christians, there are millions of Eastern Christians (more than 5 of them in Ucrainia) who are fully Eastern and Catholic.

The Uniates have undergone tremendous change and, more precisely, latinization and secularization. You can call them “eastern” if you like, but we will disagree on what that means. In any case, they are not Orthodox.

But, neither are they Catholic. Catholic in the sense of maintaining/expressing the “full truth”, the whole Gospel. This is how we see it and I know you disagree. That’s fine.

I find it almost impossible to communicate with you because, although terms may often be used in similar ways, our experiences are so very different and thus also our mindset/outlook/vision. Our experience of Christ are apparently quite different.

For me personally, this means that after attending Latin services for over a year (and ocassionally Uniate services), the first day I stepped into an Orthodox Church (a small, poor one in a little town in the midwest!) I felt immediately that I had left the world behind and entered another world, another reality. And, after Vespers ended, when I left the temple and stepped out onto the street and closed the door behind me, I once again felt as if I had passed from one world into another – this time back into that heavy atmosphere of the fallen world.

I never felt that while attending Latin or Uniate services. Rather, it was just the same ole’ world again and again.

Subjective? Personal? Of no account? Perhaps, for academics discussions and lists like this. For me, however, it was life-changing and things have never been the same. Indeed, such experiences have continued, from my baptism onward.

So, when you speak of the “eastern catholic churches” and think that they are just like the Orthodox Churches, except have the Pope, etc. and we LACK him, well, what am I to say? It all sounds just so hollow, so empty, so vain and irrelevant. Or, rather, perhaps it is quite relevant – it is perhaps that reasons why the Uniate services didn’t take me out of this world. . .

It seems to me that a need to be taken “out of this world” is rather un-Orthodox and un-Catholic.

I’ve noticed that quite a few Orthodox, especially converts, take the metaphoric language of a rather dated monastic theology as literal.

I’ve participated in Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. The quality of the liturgy depended on the participants, not the “denomination”. One of the most moving liturgies was held on a university campus by a Roman Catholic bishop from Africa. It was the simple “new” liturgy but his gestures, prayers etc; were deep and from what I think was a genuine heart. On the other hand, I’ve attended ornate Orthodox liturgies with “bishops on parade” that were so fixated on ritual and ceremony that I felt the need at times be out of there.

The purpose of liturgy is not to escape the world but to transform it.

To continue our discussion on my list of Orthodox ecclesiological “innovations”, I find that the most serious are in the field of ecclesiology, ironically precisely the main area in which Orthodoxy claims Catholicism has departed from the Patristic consensus. These include the adoption of national Churches as Orthodoxy’s effective organising ecclesiological principle, the unilateral erection of such entities by first Constantinople and more recently Moscow, and the invention of the concept of a primacy “of honour” with respect to the Holy See.

Ecclesisastical nationalism: National Churches as autocephalous entities were, in a formal sense, unknown in Orthodoxy until 927 when Constantinople unilaterally recognized (albeit under duress) a Bulgarian Patriarchate. Unilateral recognition of a Georgian Patriarchate followed in 1010.

The idea that ecclesiastical jurisdiction should conform to state boundaries had an earlier origin. In 740, the heretic Emperor Leo III the Isaurian abusively removed Sicily, southern Italy and the northern Balkans out of Papal jurisdiction, placing them instead under his iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople. The principle of “ecclesiastical nationalism”, first made explicit in the Bulgarian case, thus finds its roots not in Orthodoxy per se, but in Erastian-Iconoclast heresy several centuries before Erastus.

In a sense, Leo’s arrogation became moot once Sicily was lost to the Arabs, and the Lombard conquerors of southern Italy made their peace with Rome, but Bulgaria presented a new problem. Christian Dacia had originally been considered part of the West and so under Papal jurisdiction, but had lost its Christian (and Roman) identity after being overrun by pagan Slavs and Bulgars. When Bulgaria was converted to Christianity in the late ninth century, the issue of jurisdiction again came to the fore, however. After oscillating between Rome and Constantinople, the Bulgar state opted for the latter, subsequently extorting autocephaly from the weakened Byzantines at the peace treaty of 927.

Rome objected at the time on a number of grounds. Earlier patriarchates had been regional rather than national in character, and had been retrospectively recognized by consent of the whole Church consensually as in the case of the original three (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) or subsequently through an ecumenical council (Jerusalem and Constantinople). Constantinople’s move was not just seen by Rome as an uncanonical unilateral innovation, but also as an outright usurpation of ancient Roman jurisdiction over the northern Balkans.

The nationalistic nature of this new organizing principle was made all the clearer after Basil II’s subsequent conquest of Bulgaria in 1018 . The Patriarchate was suppressed and placed under Constantinople, again without any reference to the Papacy’s ancient claims of prior jurisdiction. Newly independent Bulgaria gravitated to Rome on its own in 1203 but, faced with the consistent and principled Roman refusal to countenance the idea of a national Church, reverted to Orthodoxy in 1235 when the Eastern Patriarchs conceded a renewed Patriarchate as the price for defection.

In 1346, Constantinople paid the price for its earlier usurpation when the Bulgarian Patriarchate unilaterally recognized a Serbian counterpart, but was able to suppress both the Bulgarian and the Serbian Patriarchates in 1393 and 1463 under the auspices of Turkish rule which made Leo’s one-state-one-Patriarchate policy its own.

We have now reached the point where autocephalous Churches predictably have come to serve the purposes of political nationalism or, in the recent, of past political imperialism. Commendably, the Moscow Patriarchate is trying to complete its transformation from Russian imperial Church to a more canonically legitimate regional primacy, but still finds itself unable to shed the “Russian” label.

Meanwhile, Constantinople and Moscow compete with each other in carving out autocephalous Churches out of each other’s jurisdictions, while a kaleidoscope of “Orthodox Churches” compete on the ground for recognition as THE national “Orthodox Church” in Ukraine, and a parody of adherence the primitive model of regional primacy is used to justify continuation of Greek ethnic hegemony over the essentially Arab faithful of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. All this disorder follows directly from heretically-motivated ecclesiology, cemented and facilitated by the next innovation: denial of a substantive universal primacy.

Honorary Primacy: I don’t see how the idea that Rome did not exercise a recognized substantive universal primacy in the first millennium can be described as anything other than an innovation. There is a clear consistent historical pattern of Rome hearing and deciding appeals from Eastern clergy, saints and emperors in the first millennium, and of having such decisions enforced in the East.

While the historical shape, outline and extent of a substantive papal primacy in the East was to some degree variable and ill-defined, it was traditionally evaded primarily by heretical emperors and hierarchs, and ultimately enforced by orthodox ones. Rules for its exercise were explicitly laid out at Sardica. St. Athanasius appealed to Rome for the annulment of the acts of Arianizing councils. St Cyril contested the right of his Nestorian opponents to sit at Ephesus on the explicit grounds that they had been excommunicated and deposed by Rome. St.Ignatius successfully appealed to Rome against his deposition and replacement by St Photius. Emperor Leo VI has his marriage annulled by Rome in an appeal against his Patriarch. And if this weren’t enough, each and every Eastern Patriarch condemned by Rome in the first millennium was either forced to step down or died a recognized heretic. There is nothing purely honorary about this kind of primacy.

It is not clear to me where this a-historical myth of a purely honorary universal primacy came from, yet the claim is frequently asserted by (albeit not all) Orthodox polemicists. The suggestion that this was affirmed at the Council of Constantinople does not stand up. To quote from its 3rd canon: “the bishop of Constantinople… shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome.” Even if one were to argue that “prerogative of honour” means “right to honour” as opposed to “right stemming from honour,” the phrase qualifies Constantinople’s primacy, not that of Rome, and until relatively recently no one considered Constantinople’s primacy in Orthodoxy to be purely honorific. Orthodox can argue over the desirability, specific extent, conditionality or origin of Rome’s universal primacy as exercised in the first millennium, but denial of its existence as a constitutive feature of the Church is an innovation.

I think I have given enough to chew on for now, particularly as the last major Orthodox “innovation” on my list concerns the essence-energy distinction

I think the description of the “innovation” is correct in its history, ( as far as it goes- that is, I think the problem began much earlier- I’ve just read a new translation of Prokopius’ “Secret History” by Anthony Kaldellis who mentions that Procopius intended to write a church history, ( never written or lost?) that certainly makes one think a bit more about how “nationalism”, a modern concept but certainly older than its terminology, may have led to the splits between the “Orthodox Greeks” and the “Monophysite East”) but I would hesitate to term the development as heresy, strictly speaking.

The Orthodox Church has declared phyletism, ( the notion of national or ethnic churches), to be a heresy.

I’m not sure of what other term to use but “heresy” is a very loaded term.

Phyletism is technically the principle of ethnically *exclusive* Churches.

I am not claiming that current Orthodox Churches are heretical by virtue of being structured along state/national lines (or on any other grounds, for that matter). The practice is merely abusive, not heretical.

I do find it significant, however, that this particular innovation is indeed historically *rooted* in heresy, as the “innovator” was the most famous of the iconoclast emperors, and its initial implementation was a partly punitive response to the Pope’s failure to abandon orthodoxy. Modern Orthodox can make of this what they will.

Just to conclude our discussion of Orthodox “innovations,” I want to point again to the Palamite essence-energies distinction. Note that Catholicism does not consider the distinction a heresy. If a number of Orthodox figures turned to Rome as a result of the Hesychast controversy, it was not because Rome had condemned Hesychasm, but because Orthodoxy had anathemized opposition to it.

Before I go any further, I think it fair to warn everyone that I am not a theologian. I may have gotten this all wrong, and am prepared to accept reasoned correction from any more familiar with the underlying issues than I am. The argument is extremely complicated, which is why I held off on expressing it explicitly until now. I sincerely hope to learn from any responses.

As I have observed before, Gregory Palamas is recognized as a Catholic saint, and commemorated by a number of Byzantine Catholic Churches in their liturgical calendars. So what’s the problem? If Rome accepts Palamism, how is it an “innovation,” particularly as we can find the energies-essence distinction in the Cappadocian Fathers (notably St Basil)?

Well to begin with, to accept theological concept as valid is different from affirming that it is true. The innovation lies not so much in the conceptual energies-essences distinction per se, but in the way the distinction has been treated by some Orthodox as a concrete as opposed to conceptual reality, and in the way a theological method serving to support the distinction as a concrete reality has been dogmatized. I recognize that this is hard to wrap one’s mind around, and I am going to try to unpack this shortly least eyes glaze over , but first I want to pursue a brief digression to *demonstrate* that Palamism is historically an innovation.

Catholicism, unlike Orthodoxy, genuinely embraces a number of theological traditions proper to its 23 sui juris rites, themselves spread over six ritual traditions (Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, East Syriac, West Syriac and Armenian). Each of these ritual traditions privileges one or more theological methodology. Nevertheless, all of these are accessible to the Church as a whole. It is not true that Thomism is the touchstone of Catholicism.

You can be a Catholic Thomist, Augustinian, Apophatic, Palamite, or Myaphysite for example whatever rite you belong to. As a Catholic, you and can legitimately apply the principles and methodologies proper to any of these traditions, or even develop your own in studying and expounding the divine mysteries. It is the axioms of the faith that are dogmatized, not the theological structures in which these axioms are articulated, defended and synthesized. You do not have to be a philosopher to be a Christian or understand Christianity.

Significantly, however, the various methodologies use different terminology and rest on philosophical principles that don’t necessarily mesh well across streams. As a result Catholic theologians normally stick to one, usually the one most closely associated with their rite, though Latinization and the sheer comparative historical weight of scholarship behind Thomism means that few Eastern Catholic theologians are unfamiliar or even uninfluenced by it.

Even in the Latin rite, however, theological methodology has gone through phases and fads: allegorical, Augustinian, Scholastic (even Neo-Scholastic) and more recently “nouvelle theologie” itself powerfully influenced by apophatic theology (though it is important to recognize that none of the others were ever totally cataphatic).

If Palamism were “the” normative theological tradition and not an innovation, one would expect to find it at least in germinal form in all the traditions that predate the schisms of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the failed reunions of Lyons and Florence. Yet you won’t find any “primitive Palamism” outside Orthodoxy prior to Palamas. Byzantine Catholics commemorate St Gregory, but Latins, Armenians, Copts, Maronites, Armenians, and Chaldeans (whether Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian) as a general rule do not. Palamas, Hesychasm, and the essence-energies distinction are at best marginal to all the non-Byzantine traditions.

But what about St Basil one might ask, surely he precedes all these schisms and thus should be at the heart of all traditions? Indeed he is. The problem, however, is that just because Basil uses the words “essence” and “energy” in reference to the divine, does not mean he understands these as distinctions within (experiential and non-experiential) God.

It strikes me that before St Gregory Palamas, no one would have understood Basil literally when he wrote “And He, like the sun, will by the aid of thy purified eye show thee in Himself the image of the invisible, and in the blessed spectacle of the image thou shalt behold the unspeakable beauty of the archetype.” Nor is it clear that St Basil associates God’s energy with his attributes as St Gregory does. A plain reading of St Basil merely suggests a distinction between God and His action. If anyone before St Gregory read Basil as suggesting that one could experience God’s attributes independently of His essence, why did it take some 900 years for anyone to state so explicitly?

Undeniably, Thomism, with its strong stress on divine simplicity, has enormous difficulty with reification (if I may use a Hegellian term) a distinction between experiential and non experiential aspects of God. But we have to understand that we are dealing with philosophical concepts here, with ways of talking about God, not with objective and concrete realities. Just because one can make a conceptual distinction doesn’t mean that the distinction is an actual one. We don’t experience aspects, we experience phenomena. Just because you can make a conceptual distinction between your mother and her appearance does not mean you do not encounter your mother when you converse with her. The distinction may be a meaningful one philosophically, but it isn’t a real one. Your mother’s appearance is not a concrete reality that exists separably from her.

I won’t go so far as to accuse St Gregory, as some have done, of denying divine simplicity. But it strikes me that by anathemizing those who would deny the reality of the distinction and of its quasi-materialistic application to perception of the divine light, Orthodoxy is indulging in profound innovation. It has not only dogmatized rather than merely privileged a way of talking about the divine mysteries (i.e. has dogmatized a particular theological methodology rather than axiomatically defining the content of revelation), but it appears to have presumed to dogmatize private experience as revealed truth, which St Paul warned against and which Rome has never done.

To be fair, many Orthodox theologians hold to a more careful and nuanced understanding of the Hesychast councils of 1341 and 1351 which acclaimed Palamism and condemned its opponents. It was Barlaam, after all, who first laid charges of heresy, and the anti-Hesychasts who were insistent on a wholesale condemnation of Hesychasm on doctrinal grounds. But how many contemporary Orthodox understand those councils in a “negative” sense as merely condemning Barlaam for disturbing the peace of the Church? How many still view Barlaam and those after him as heretics merely for refusing to believe in Hesychasm?

At any rate, this completes my list. It isn’t exhaustive, but I think it establishes my point that “innovation” is not an exclusively Roman propensity. Innovations should be judged on their objective merits, not against myths ascribing unchanging articulation of the faith to one side or the other.

Prayers for Unity

O Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, thou didst promise to abide with us always. Thou dost call all Christians to draw near and partake of Thy Body and Blood. But our sin has divided us and we have no power to partake of Thy Holy Eucharist together. We confess this our sin and we pray Thee, forgive us and help us to serve the ways of reconciliation, according to Thy Will. Kindle our hearts with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Give us the spirit of Wisdom and faith, of daring and of patience, of humility and firmness, of love and of repentance, through the prayers of the most blessed Mother of God and of all the saints. Amen. – Fr Sergius Bulgakov

O Merciful Lord Jesus, Our Savior, hear the prayers and petitions of Your unworthy sinful servants who humbly call upon You and make us all to be one in Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Flood our souls with Your unquenchable light. Put an end to religious disagreements, and grant that we Your disciples and Your beloved children may all worship You with a single heart and voice. Fulfill quickly, O grace-giving Lord, your promise that there shall be one flock and one Divine Shepherd of Your Church; and may we be made worthy to glorify Your Holy Name now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. – Bl. Leonid Fedorov